5 Things We Learned on Oscar Nom Morning...
Wednesday, January 26, 2011 at 9:15PM Some of which we already knew but that's splitting hairs.
With 24 official Academy Awards categories and somewhere over 108 nominations announced each year (a few less publicized categories vary in number of nominees from year to year), there is always a lot to parse out on Oscar nomination day. Tuesday, January 25, 2011 was no exception as Mo’Nique, last year’s supporting actress winner for Precious, read out the nominees bright and early in that inimitable voice of hers. You can see the full list of nominees here (more info to come over the next few weeks). With so much to discuss, it’s necessary to break it down into manageable talking points.
5. Genre Bias Remains
Black Swan opened to sensational reviews, huge precursor favor and robust box office in December. The film even had to ramp up its expansion plans to capitalize on demand. In the end, it was still a horror films (of sorts) in which a ballerina sprouts wings and loses her mind. On Oscar nomination morning, it missed in key categories in which most people expected it to show. Inception opened to fanatical reviews and gargantuan box office, ending the year as the only member of the year’s top ten box office hits to be aimed at adults. In the end, it was still a sci-film (of sorts)...
READ THE REST AT TRIBECA FILM
for the other 4 talking points including a peculiar Sundance Festival trick.
...that is if you're not completely burnt out on Oscar articles.
And if yah are... uh oh Blanche!
Black Swan, Inception, Oscars (10), Sundance, The King's Speech, documentaries
Reader Comments (18)
Not terribly surprised Black Swan had a so-so showing. I figured it was in a little trouble when it didn't even make a shortlist for makeup! Ridiculous.
sixth thing: academy president tom sherak didn't bother rehearsing. some of his gems -
helen a bonham carter
the animal kingdom
(to monique, after she'd read her first category flawlessly) that's good
the black swan
6. Mo'Nique is still as fabulous as ever...excuse me, Academy Award winner, Mo'Nique~
Hahah, love her.
What do you think of Rahman taking Original Song again? He has that afterglow thing happening for him because of how popular Slumdog Millionaire was. I mean, if Santaolalla can win two music Oscars for back to back films, surely someone like Rahman who writes clever and memorable music can take home another trophy this year.
I'm not sure about the Genre Bias argument. I always expect the genre bias in sound to be *for* the genre pieces, like Salt, TRON Legacy, Toy Story 3, and Inception; instead, they got in, whereas subtler sound work in dramas like The King's Speech and The Social Network were honored. Black Swan's contemporary art direction slot was probably taken by Inception; same with costume and I Am Love. And Inception didn't get in for Direction and Editing, but it did get one for Screenplay (?) and Picture, so it'll be fine. Black Swan was the horror film that *did* get Direction and Editing, in addition to Picture, so I think that's still an accomplishment.
If Black Swan or Inception *only* got tech nods, maybe we could call Genre Bias. But both in Picture and Cinematography, one in Actress and Director, and one in Screenplay? That's bloody good. Carrie only got two nods, both in acting (thank God); Blade Runner only got two nods, Art Direction and VFX (like Inception, and also deserved). Surely they, respectively, also deserved Score/Adapted Screenplay/Director and Director/Supporting Actor/Cinematography?
Is any of this intelligible? I feel like I'm rambling, as I'm wont to do come Oscar time. I do love the article, though!
I guess it's weaker genre bias, but still salient, because Walter "Inception" won the BFCA award for editing, was nominated by ACE, and the dreams-within-a-dream section is really an editing challenge.
this year's best actress nominees sure is a fantastic lineup. every one of those performances are deserving! (even though jennifer lawrence is weaker than the other four)
I see your point, and I agree: Inception's strengths lie in the Editing, the Score, and the Direction. But which genre does this bias work against? Action and sci-fi are often Editing Nominees: The Dark Knight, The Bourne Ultimatum, Avatar, District 9, Children of Men, The Matrix, Air Force One, Aliens, Who Framed Roger Rabbit... I truly don't think genre bias figures in here. It's one of those shocking snubs that can't be explained away with a term like that. The directing snub? For Inception, maybe. I don't know what he did to the Directors in the Academy to get their disapproval. But Editing? With The Dark Knight and Memento both being previous nominees? I don't think of it as genre bias.
Didn't Nathaniel write about the best picture expansion and outcry against The Dark Knight "snubs" being unnecessary sturm und drang? That we can't really say The Dark Knight suffered because it was nominated for eight Oscars (tied with winner Slumdog Millionaire) and won two of them? I really do think that some genres have it harder than others, and YES the Editing snub is shocking, but Inception is tied with frontrunner The Social Network for noms. I think it'll be ok.
I'm not just being purposefully ignorant, am I?
Don't forget that all of Jacki Weaver's buzz emerged out of Sundance, too.
Walter -- curious. I never expected that stating they have a genre bias would be a sticking point. To me it's obvious. I mean year after year they prefer traditional dramas and period pieces rooted in reality. Flights of fancy whether horror, sci-fi, fantasy, musicals, whatever... always stick way the hell out as obvious exceptions to their preferences.
kent -- true. great lineup. I don't get quite why it was so easy for Lawrence to get that nod in such a stacked year but its' still a good performance. First lineup in awhile that;s hard to complain about in any way despite all the wonderful people left off of it.
When "The King's Speech" and "True Grit" get nods for art direction and costume design in the same year that "Black Swan" is eligible (yet still doesn't), there is something gravely wrong. The Academy has always had a bias toward genre AND contemporary films with respect to certain categories, and what kills me most is that their bias lacks perspective. It's as though they automatically assume that it's harder to design sets, costumes, makeup, etc. for a period piece than for anything else.
Troy H -- which is, if you ask me, an automatically false assumption :) It's the same issue as people playing real life people and they assume that's harder.
It's MUCH harder to create from nothing and end up feeling very specific and authentic than to *recreate* and do the same.
The momentum thing is interesting, f Renner puts in an impressive performance in the next 2-3 years he will seem 'due' and win.
Well, we learned that Tom Sherak is a putz of the highest order, but we already knew that, so moving on.
This race should really be wrapped up for "The Social Network," but it's so not now with all of this "The King's Speech" business mucking up the race. Maybe I should be glad that there is some competition, but for me, "The Social Network" towers over "The King's Speech" so easily, and if that film's handed BP, it's like we've stepped back in time 20 years. "The Social Network" is destined to be a classic whether or not it gets the BP stamp of approval. Can't say the same for "The King's Speech," which needs that Oscar validation. But even if it's only for bragging rights, I'm rooting for "The Social Network" to the end, even if it's a losing battle. Please don't fail me, SAG and DGA! It's a make-it-or-break-it weekend for our internet geeks.
"True Grit" is a Western, but it got 10 nominations, including in major categories. It's impossible to talk about Oscar genre bias and ignore the film that suggests there's more involved in the situation. Unless we're discussing a hierarchy of genre bias that ranks Westerns higher than horror films which are higher than sci-fi films.
I don't buy the genre bias arguement. Since when is being nominated for picture, director and actress a snub? Or eight awards including best picture a snub? Also, "True Grit" which was nominated for an unexpected 10 is a genre movie also and one that is not more or less favored (Oscar-wise) than sci-fi or ballet horror movies. I haven't seen "Black Swan" yet so I can fully comment on that account, but the last ballet horror movie "The Turning Point" go 11 nominations.
Westerns have almost always been embraced by the Academy ("Unforgiven," "Stagecoach," "Dances with Wolves," "High Noon"), so much so that I would hardly consider them when speaking about genre bias. Even so, there is something inherently traditional about the genre itself that easily explains why a film like "True Grit" can receive so many nods.
Hierarchy according to Oscar:
Royalty based films
Pure dramas set within the last 40 years (sometimes overlaps with the above)
Dramedies
Epics
Westerns
Comedies
Sci-Fi
Fantasy
Horror
Surreal cinema (I rank surreal cinema above parodies, because at least well done surrealism gets director noms.)
Parodies (Only 2 parodies have recieved Academy Award attention. Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein, released the same year. 3 noms for Saddles, 2 noms for Frankenstein. The additional 5 for the 10 would be: A Woman Under the Influence, Day for Night, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, Murder on the Orient Express and (probably) Harry and Tonto. (so even with 10, I doubt a parody would be in the best pic race.))