I find it frankly a little silly that the "controversies", which to me seem to say more about the reactive mentality of certain types of press and their readers than the film itself, should...
I find it frankly a little silly that the "controversies", which to me seem to say more about the reactive mentality of certain types of press and their readers than the film itself, should somehow determine whether the film is worth an award, as seems to be implied here. The film is the film, and whatever stories happen outside of it should not really matter within the context of an award show.
Not that I am naive enough to really expect that. They did, after all, run the show without a host because they couldn't find a person that someone somewhere wouldn't be able to get terribly mad at terribly publicly.
At the same time, I also find it quite baffling that Green Book should win not only the best film award, but also for best original screenplay. I thought it was a light and funny feel-good film that hinted at more complex topics which it either wasn't brave enough or competent enough to go into. I enjoyed the film, but thought its dramatic structure was flawed and that it had nothing particularly interesting to say that hasn't been said multiple times before in a myriad of better ways. The story was clearly more Hollywood than real. And in terms of its handling of racial and social topics, it seemed a couple of decades behind the times. It was fun, but I'm not sure what it was doing there on the list of nominees, to be honest.
Many have been calling for lighter entertainment to be taken more seriously by the academy, but I'm not sure if this is exactly what they had in mind. Still, congratulations to the makers and the stars.
This is a result of how the Academy changed the vote process. They essentially moved to a ranked choice voting system. So while BlacKkKlansman or Vice might have been more members first choice, if...
This is a result of how the Academy changed the vote process. They essentially moved to a ranked choice voting system. So while BlacKkKlansman or Vice might have been more members first choice, if neither got 51% of the votes then something like Green Book can win by consistently placing third on most ballots.
This voting process makes a lot of sense when electing politicians, but it leaves stuff like the Oscars feeling a bit disappointing.
FairVote (a non-profit advocating electoral reform in the US) actually uses the Academy's voting process as an example of real-world use of ranked choice voting.
FairVote (a non-profit advocating electoral reform in the US) actually uses the Academy's voting process as an example of real-world use of ranked choice voting.
see here the many, many controversies surrounding this movie, and see here one of the less than rosy reviews it got despite its win tonight which are likely to make it age hilariously poorly.
see here the many, many controversies surrounding this movie, and see here one of the less than rosy reviews it got despite its win tonight which are likely to make it age hilariously poorly.
I don't know about age poorly. The backlash (totally justified in my opinion) about it being a tired uninteresting story that was essentially pure revisionism started pretty much immediately upon...
I don't know about age poorly. The backlash (totally justified in my opinion) about it being a tired uninteresting story that was essentially pure revisionism started pretty much immediately upon release.
Another point of contention from the Green Book win is that none of the folks who gave an acceptance speech bothered to even mention Don Shirley, who the movie is based on. I also wanted to add...
I also wanted to add that I think Seth Meyers did a great skit with Amber Ruffin on the whole "White Savior" genre that touches on much of why I think these kinds of film are garbage.
I find it frankly a little silly that the "controversies", which to me seem to say more about the reactive mentality of certain types of press and their readers than the film itself, should somehow determine whether the film is worth an award, as seems to be implied here. The film is the film, and whatever stories happen outside of it should not really matter within the context of an award show.
Not that I am naive enough to really expect that. They did, after all, run the show without a host because they couldn't find a person that someone somewhere wouldn't be able to get terribly mad at terribly publicly.
At the same time, I also find it quite baffling that Green Book should win not only the best film award, but also for best original screenplay. I thought it was a light and funny feel-good film that hinted at more complex topics which it either wasn't brave enough or competent enough to go into. I enjoyed the film, but thought its dramatic structure was flawed and that it had nothing particularly interesting to say that hasn't been said multiple times before in a myriad of better ways. The story was clearly more Hollywood than real. And in terms of its handling of racial and social topics, it seemed a couple of decades behind the times. It was fun, but I'm not sure what it was doing there on the list of nominees, to be honest.
Many have been calling for lighter entertainment to be taken more seriously by the academy, but I'm not sure if this is exactly what they had in mind. Still, congratulations to the makers and the stars.
This is a result of how the Academy changed the vote process. They essentially moved to a ranked choice voting system. So while BlacKkKlansman or Vice might have been more members first choice, if neither got 51% of the votes then something like Green Book can win by consistently placing third on most ballots.
This voting process makes a lot of sense when electing politicians, but it leaves stuff like the Oscars feeling a bit disappointing.
Interesting, I had not heard about that. Do you have a source for any more info on the voting process change this year?
FairVote (a non-profit advocating electoral reform in the US) actually uses the Academy's voting process as an example of real-world use of ranked choice voting.
see here the many, many controversies surrounding this movie, and see here one of the less than rosy reviews it got despite its win tonight which are likely to make it age hilariously poorly.
I don't know about age poorly. The backlash (totally justified in my opinion) about it being a tired uninteresting story that was essentially pure revisionism started pretty much immediately upon release.
Another point of contention from the Green Book win is that none of the folks who gave an acceptance speech bothered to even mention Don Shirley, who the movie is based on.
I also wanted to add that I think Seth Meyers did a great skit with Amber Ruffin on the whole "White Savior" genre that touches on much of why I think these kinds of film are garbage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_RTnuJvg6U
Its also frustrating that If Beale Street Could Talk was not nominated.
Honestly the skit with Seth Meyers sums it up perfectly
https://youtu.be/DY69eoacdLg
The above video is a mini documentary/interview with Dr. Don Shirley in his later years.