The Oscars' Voters Unveiled

[Guest fountainhall]

A short quiz! What have a nun, a bookstore owner and a retired Peace Corps volunteer in common with Julia Roberts, George Clooney and Leonardo di Caprio?

 

Well, tonight was Oscar night in LA and the answer is related – so no prize! The three movie stars all vote for the Oscar winners. Amazingly, so do the three unknowns!

 

Up late this morning, I tuned in to the Oscars telecast about half way through. Having enthused about the BAFTA Awards telecast two weeks ago (see separate thread), I found the whole Oscars thing yet another repetitive, crashing bore. Thankfully I missed Billy Crystal's opening monologue -

 

Billy Crystal's opening monologue at the Oscars was underwhelming, to be generous . . . Crystal's signature song-and-dance number followed, and seemed dated and overlong. His pre-routine jokes mostly bombed . . .

 

http://now.msn.com/e...stal-intro.aspx

 

There was an interesting article in the LA Times a week ago which takes a hard look at the secret and highly skewed demographics of the membership of the Academy of Motion Pictures, Arts and Sciences, the only people who are actually entitled to vote at Oscar time. It stresses again the need for change in the make-up of the Academy and the whole Oscar business.

 

Total membership is less than 5,800, overwhelmingly white males in their 60s. Membership is for life, yet “hundreds” of members of the Academy have not been involved in making a movie for more than 10 years. And this inevitably reopens the debate over whether the Oscars still matter to an increasingly diverse audience both in the US and around the world. In other words, just the point that thailworthy made in the BAFTA thread!

 

Winning a golden statuette can vault an actor to stardom, add millions to a movie's box office and boost a studio's prestige. Yet the roster of all 5,765 voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is a closely guarded secret.

 

Even inside the movie industry, intense speculation surrounds the academy's composition and how that influences who gets nominated for and wins Oscars. The organization does not publish a membership list.

 

"I have to tell you," said academy member Viola Davis, nominated for lead actress this year for "The Help." "I don't even know who is a member of the academy."

 

A Los Angeles Times study found that academy voters are markedly less diverse than the moviegoing public, and even more monolithic than many in the film industry may suspect. Oscar voters are nearly 94% Caucasian and 77% male, The Times found. Blacks are about 2% of the academy, and Latinos are less than 2%.

 

Oscar voters have a median age of 62, the study showed. People younger than 50 constitute just 14% of the membership . . . membership is generally for life, and hundreds of academy voters haven't worked on a movie in decades.

 

Some are people who have left the movie business entirely but continue to vote on the Oscars — including a nun, a bookstore owner and a retired Peace Corps recruiter. Under academy rules, their votes count the same as ballots cast by the likes of Julia Roberts, George Clooney and Leonardo DiCaprio.

 

 

http://www.latimes.c...73284.htmlstory

[Rogie]

So we get to the end of the post above none the wiser as regards who won what. Well, that's a merciful relief. I'm not saying I have zero interest in the Oscars, I enjoy watching films, but FH has dextrously hammered another nail in the coffin as far as my cynical attitude towards them is concerned. I never watch the award ceremony and so I usually find out who won by happenstance.

 

Another thing I dislike is all the phoney speculation ahead of the awards. For example how can the media be so certain that a particular film is going to win, are they just guessing or have some of the mysterious 5,765 voting members been blabbing? When an award is made there should be a reason why that film or that actor/actress was chosen and a breakdown showing us how the members voted. Let's have a bit of transparency instead of perpetuating what is clearly some kind of secret society. Another question: one would imagine that in order to qualify for a vote, any individual member should have carefully watched every film nominated for an award. Hopefully they all do but can you imagine the nun being bothered (even if she's allowed!) to do that. Of course she probably doesn't vote so fair enough, but I wonder how many members are enthusiastic voters having watched all the films and how many are lazy and can't be bothered apart from casting their votes with a cynical shrug?

[Guest fountainhall]

how can the media be so certain that a particular film is going to win

 

They can't, although I am sure their reporters talk to a lot of people. It's a bit like all the title-tattle in sports columns about different players moving to different clubs, or in the gossip columns saying X has been seen with Y (although if you put all the media stories together, X will also have been seen Z, A, B and the whole of the rest of the alphabet.

 

Why?

 

So when the truth finally comes out, one or more will trumpet in blazing headlines: "You saw the story here first!" When they get it right, in the eyes of many (sadly) this sort of sleazy journalism is supposed to add to the credibility of the relevant rag. Trouble is, for every story they guess right, there are many they don't. Such is the integrity of the lower orders of the fourth estate

[Bob]

Let's have a bit of transparency instead of perpetuating what is clearly some kind of secret society.

 

One would think you all are analyzing a cabinet meeting in the British or US government or something! Geez, guys, it's only a television show about academy members giving awards to themselves. Presuming it works right (probably doesn't - nothing much does), an award from your peers probably ought to mean something. And, of course, it usually does (fills up the space on somebody's mantle and often brings the winning movie/actor/etc. a little more money).

 

Harmless fun in my view. And I'd even add that I think they're usually right (or close to right) about the winners.

 

I watched the show this morning and thought it was okay. Of course, nowhere near the quality of some of the films nominated but fun nonetheless.

 

I've only seen Moneyball, The Help, and the Descendants of the nominated films and thought The Help was a great film, the Descendants was a very good film, and I'm still scratching my head as to why Moneyball was even nominated. Looking forward to seeing The Artist and Hugo when I get the chance.

[Guest fountainhall]

Let's have a bit of transparency instead of perpetuating what is clearly some kind of secret society.

 

Personally I don’t care too much if it is a secret society. That’s basically their business. What I do care more about is the Oscar as a brand. For even though it’s a smallish group of people slapping each other on the back once a year, what happens at the Oscars affects the viewing habits of swathes of people around the world.

 

Winning an Oscar can add tens of millions and more to a film’s box-office. It can sometimes kick-start a movie that was basically dying. No wonder people like Harvey Weinstein (a producer I admire for his picking up some of the best movies of recent decades when the established studios had spurned them) spend millions in many different ways in attempts to woo Oscar voters.

 

If the voting process is not in fact a true and balanced peer group recognizing the talents of several of their own, then who does the voting takes on a degree of importance in my eyes. Now, wouldn’t a lawyer say the same when it came to jury selection?

 


I watched the show this morning and thought it was okay.


 

Having watched the start of the rerun, in all honesty I can’t believe anyone feels that Billy Crystal’s attempts at livening up a basically moribund process amounted to anything more than pretty pathetic childish humour. Everything he did fell flat. What’s the point of a ham-fisted attempt to insert the septuagenarian into clips of nominated movies when most of the worldwide TV audience will not have seen most of them?

 

Too many awards, too many stars gazing blandly at the auto-cue and reading blandly a couple of lines of childish copy before listing each set of nominees, too many dire acceptance speeches (with a few notable exceptions, especially Meryl Streep) . . .

 

Sure, it’s an “in” party for the celebs and the industry. But the show is supposed to be entertainment for the world, not just the US. It needs to be restructured, just as the Golden Globe and BAFTA ceremonies have done.

[Bob]

Now, wouldn’t a lawyer say the same when it came to jury selection?

 

Most definitely but jury selection is real and rather vital to the participants. On the other hand, a movie is only popular entertainment from my perspective.

 

Back to the movies, have you or Rogie (or others) had the opportunity to see the Iron Lady, Hugo, or The Artist and, if so, your ratings of any of them?

[Guest fountainhall]

I have seen “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” and “The Iron Lady”. “The Artist”, “Midnight in Paris” and “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” are on my desk and next on my list.

 

“Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” is a very slow movie. As it's about the height of the Cold War in the 1970s, it's unlikely younger viewers will appreciate its many subtleties. Gary Oldman is hugely effective in the lead role, but again his performance is all about subtlety and I reckon this will be lost on some people. Although I loved John Le Carre's novel - as I have most of his books - I found my concentration wavering.

 

One of the movie’s problems, for me, is the incessant moving backwards and forwards in time so that I was often never quite sure where we were in the plot. I also feel this is one of the drawbacks of “The Iron Lady”. If you do not know the history of Thatcher, of how she came to power and revolutionized her party, of the miners’ strike, the Falklands War, the introduction of the poll tax and the revolt of her colleagues which led to her resignation, of her husband’s foibles and his being a constant target in the satirical magazines, I think you will end up more than somewhat confused.

 

Streep’s performance is excellent. It can never be easy portraying a person so many people have seen so many times. But essentially an actor mimicking much of a ‘live’ person’s personality has a different job from one who has to create a totally new personality from scratch. In that sense, I feel the best actress performance I have seen this year - by a mile - was Tilda Swinton in “We Need to Talk about Kevin.” It’s a searing portrayal of boredom, shock, horror, bewilderment, pain, confusion and guilt in a deeply disturbing movie. How she was not nominated is unbelievable to me – except the Academy does tend to steer away from subject matter that is highly controversial. That would also explain why Michael Fassbender too received no notice for his highly-acclaimed performance in the sex-addiction drama “Shame”.

 

Today’s LA Times has an interesting and quite damning article on the whole business surrounding the Oscars and its annual “painfully cobwebby spectacle” of the Awards ceremony that

 

. . . included a cringe-inducing blackface joke, a tribute to an elderly seat filler and endless self-absorbed claptrap about the magic of movies.

 

It points to growing evidence that the movie-going public just doesn’t like the same movies the Academy members do.

 

“The Artist” won best picture but hasn't hit box-office pay dirt outside of the urban chattering classes. Having struggled to make $32 million, “The Artist” is on track to be the second-lowest grossing best picture winner in the past 35 years.

 

The worst performing best picture winner in that period was 2009's “The Hurt Locker.” In other words, the two lowest-grossing best picture winners have come in the past three years, not an especially encouraging sign in terms of Oscar relevance to the broader culture.

 

As for the content of the Awards Show, it refers to the internal debate within the Academy -

 

. . . should the Oscars remain a stodgy but classy way of honoring the year's most artistic films? Or should it open its doors to more populist fare in the hopes of reflecting more mainstream tastes (and of course higher TV ratings)? 

The truth is, the show could be more populist but still classy. And the academy could diversify itself without diminishing its status as a meritocracy.

 

It goes on to suggest -

 

If the Academy really wanted to connect with a broader audience, why didn’t it organize a “Harry Potter” tribute, spotlighting the beloved actors who helped make the series such an immensely popular box-office mainstay?

 

http://latimesblogs....he-academy.html

 

Although it does not say so, presumably the idea of a retrospective of a triumphant series of eight of the highest grossing movies of the last ten years that were inspired by a British writer, filmed in the UK with a UK crew, and used exclusively the cream of British acting talent plus three British newcomers to film, did not sit well with an organization firmly rooted in Hollywood!

[Bob]

Picked up Hugo, War Horse, and The Artist the other day and plan to watch them soon. Still can't find The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (which is the one I most want to see due to my fondness for the Larrson books) or Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. And hope to pick up the Iron Lady soon.

 

But I'm a bit dumbfounded at your comments about the Potter movies and your suggestion that they didn't win or get nominated in various categories because of some anti-British bias? Oh, come on. Let's see.....now which Potter film would you suggest ought to get Best Picture? And which Potter performance has gotten to the quality level of any of the supporting or lead actors and actresses who won in those categories? I don't think I saw such a performance but maybe I missed it.

 

Maybe they ought to add a couple of other categories like "most popular film" or "biggest box office money maker" or the like but, until they do, Harry and his pals aren't what I would call first-tier actors regardless of where they're from. And the adulation by Americans of tons of British actors and actresses over the years ought to dispel any anti-British bias. I can't recite all the British winners over the years (I presume Gielgud, Guiness, Burton, Oliviet, etc., probably got a few) but, if my memory is not too bad for the last 10 years or so: The King's Speech and Colin Firth (hmmm....just last year, wasn't it?), Helen Mirren, Kate Winslet, Daniel Day Lewis, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Thompson, and probably a few others I can't remember. Come to think of it, given the percentage of British actors and actresses in the films who've won Oscars, maybe there's a pro-British bias?

[Guest fountainhall]

But I'm a bit dumbfounded at your comments about the Potter movies and your suggestion that they didn't win or get nominated in various categories because of some anti-British bias?

 

No, Bob! I certainly never proposed that any of the Potter movies should either be nominated for or win anything. I was merely commenting on the LA Times suggestion that instead of the boring old usual Oscar ceremony routines, they could have organised a "Harry Potter tribute" - the newspaper's idea, not mine! I expect they picked it up from the BAFTA Awards ceremony a couple of weeks earlier which had opened with a short retrospective to celebrate 50 years of Bond movies (also British ).

 

As for my comment about the Potter movies being mainly British, it was a totally tongue-in-cheek riposte - as I hoped the icon at the end would indicate!

 

(By the way, you omitted three of the finest grandes dames in British acting - Dame Judi Dench, Dame Vanessa Redgrave and Dame Maggie Smith! But then they appear so frequently in movies, we tend to take them for granted ).

 

PS: On which topic, I wonder if you have seen the DVDs of the British UK TV series "Downton Abbey" which has also been a massive hit in the USA and other countries. Maggie Smith is simply superb as the Dowager Countess of Grantham, bordering on caricature but never slipping over the edge! The street sellers in Bangkok have both series 1 and 2.

 

PSS: Forgot to mention I saw "My Week with Marilyn" a few weeks back, Loved it! Michelle Williams is almost perfect as Marilyn Monroe, Kenneth Branagh gives a wonderful, slightly camp performance as Laurence Olivier, and Judi Dench is deliciously over-the-top as Dame Edith Sitwell (who, as I recall, was always deliciously over-the-top ).

[Bob]

Whoops - no problem: guess that flew right over my head (I at least didn't get the tongue-in-cheek part). [but I plead partial insanity given I've been translating today some of the absolutely dumbest stories from Thai into English. My god (or buddha or the moon, as the case may be), the last story was about some bonehead walking into a blind alley, stumbling in the dark over a rock, coming up to a wall that's too tall to climb, and having an Einstein-moment to go back and get the rock so he could step up on it to jump over the wall. And the moral of the story was that children need to turn the obstacles of life into advantages. My guess is the only lesson they would learn is to either not stumble on a rock in the first place and/or laugh at the dolt that did! ]

 

Well, we could have a tallest ogre award as I always had a hankering for Hagrid.....

[Guest fountainhall]

Just watched "Midnight in Paris" and loved it! It's another screenplay that moves back and forward in time, but this one works wonderfully. It's too easy to give the 'game' away, and so I'll just add that anyone who knows Paris will delight in it - a magical and fantastic tapestry whose various threads bring the city to life. Woody Allen at his best!

[Guest fountainhall]

have you or Rogie (or others) had the opportunity to see the Iron Lady . . . ?

 

Did you see it yet, Bob? What did you (and others) think of it?

[Bob]

Did you see it yet, Bob? What did you (and others) think of it?

 

Yes, watched it Sunday (so did Khun Khortose). Acting by Streep and the British (I think?) man who played her husband was as good as it gets. She certainly deserved the Oscar. I'm amazed every time I see her.

 

As for the script/story, I found it to be fine but not all that great. I think The Help (and maybe even The Descendants) were better overall movies (still haven't seen The Artist or Midnight in Paris though). At times, I thought the pacing of the movie through the different time eras was a bit contrived and/or forced and, predictably, I thought too much time was spent dwelling on riots, terrorism, and the Falkland war. To be honest, I probably would have liked the movie better if it was just snippets of home life between Thatcher and her husband and/or spent more time on one subject which Thatcher had to work her way through.

 

But, a very good movie. I'd give it a 9 or so overall (but, without Streep, it would have likely gotten no more than a 6 or 7 from me).

[Guest fountainhall]

Acting by Streep and the British (I think?) man who played her husband was as good as it gets.

 

Jim Broadbent - one of the panoply of excellent British actors. Got the Best Supporting Actor Oscar in 2001 for playing Judi Dench's husband in "Iris".

[Guest fountainhall]

Still can't find The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (which is the one I most want to see due to my fondness for the Larrson books

 

I must be one of the few that found the books difficult and gave up mid-way through the 2nd. The New York Times talked about Larsson’s "heavy-footed clumsiness as a storyteller" and I felt the same - but then many millions did not. Must have been all those Swedish names that got me!

 

But I saw the movie last night and really enjoyed it.

[Bob]

But I saw the movie last night and really enjoyed it.

 

Glad to hear it. Looked again yesterday and couldn't find the movie.....yet. If I don't find it soon, maybe I'll ask a buddy to "torrent" it for me (I now declare "torrent" to be a verb....).

 

I loved the Larrson trilogy...read all three of them two years ago and then again last year. And I noticed that all three of the books remain within the top 12 of the New York Times Combined Ebook & Print Fiction bestsellers. Been there for years too.

[Guest fountainhall]

Well, I finally saw "The Artist" - or at least about 50 minutes of it. My friends have mostly loved it. Even said it was one of the funniest movies they'd seen for ages. I think I laughed just once. I found it so boringly predictable and gave up! Yes, it was clever, and cleverly done. But how on earth it picked up so many awards all over the place, I totally fail to understand! Guess I just didn't have enough to drink beforehand

[Guest thaiworthy]

To a certain extent, the Academy is obsessed with themselves and their industry. HUGO also contained a subplot on the making of silent films. I did like this film. I have not seen "The Artist" yet, but as another portrayal of the film industry I am not surprised that it earned such recognition.

 

One movie of this style that I did like for certain, was "Chaplin" starring Oscar-nominee Robert Downey Jr., who seems to have now supercharged his career as Sherlock Holmes after a period of downtime while recovering from drug use.