It's perfectly fine to say a movie "isn't for me" without feeling the need to speak on behalf of an entire gender. Saying a movie isn't for men because it's about women is only perpetuating a closed-minded approach to film viewing.
I don't know. It sounds like a pretty safe bet to say a movie named "Women Talking" isn't geared toward men. I mean if we were talking about an Expendables movie and a woman said that's not really for us...I doubt you'd see any men raising their hands to object to someone speaking for their whole gender. 😂
@@sydneywierenga289 maybe I'm unclear. People can enjoy all kinds of movies led by either men or women. However, it's just true that some movies will appeal more to men and others will appeal more to women. Obviously, romantic comedies are geared more toward women and an expendables type movie is geared more toward men. A movie named "Women Talking" is clearly more geared toward women and a movie named "Men Talking" would be geared to no one. 🙂 And there are movies that have widespread appeal to everyone like Top Gun or EEAAO.
I was baffled by Jeff's comment that this is a bad year for movies. Like what? Banshees, Tar, EEAAO, Aftersun, Decision to Leave, The Quiet Girl, The Menu just to name a few are all amazing. I think this is the strongest year for the Oscars since 2019. Very out of touch to say this is a bad year for movies, I don't agree with that at all.
I love this series and I 💯% support anyone who doesn’t like any movie, but Jeff’s smug approach and acting like he speaks for everyone when he isn’t a fan of something is really egotistical. There are plenty of people who liked Women Talking. It did score a Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay nomination after all and it’s favored to win for the latter. I take no issue with Jeff not liking Women Talking, but his approach to persuasion is to discredit others’ point of view while shouting expletives into his camera. It’s really unnecessary and makes him look like an asshole (and teetering on misogynistic). Thank God for Mantz for being such a peacekeeper and kudos to Perri for standing up for her point of view and never letting Jeff push her into a corner. There’s room for all three of their points of view (whether in agreement or not) without resorting to the mini-tantrum Jeff just threw because he found himself in the minority of not liking Women Talking. Mantz and Perri both praised the film all award season (Perri even more so). Personally, I’m a film lover, so I’ll watch any kind of movie, male or female driven. A good movie is a good movie. I liked Top Gun AND Women Talking. If either (or both) of those films don’t appeal to you, that’s your prerogative. But it doesn’t mean that’s how EVERYONE else feels. Jeff acts like he speaks for everyone outside of this show. It’s annoying.
I finally saw Women Talking and I thought it was fantastic. I wish Sarah Polley would have gotten a directing nomination. I agree with Perri. It is also my number 3 movie of the year, right behind Everything, Everywhere and Banshees.
Listen up. I’m a man who has wanted to see Women Talking since it’s release, but the film is nowhere near me in theaters and it’s February. I’ve seen the rest of the nominees. If they want the film to be seen, they should have had a wider release.
It’s 2 hours away from me, and I’m convalescent in a wheelchair on top of that. So I hear you. It’s in my watch list too. I wonder if it’ll hit any streamers before the Oscars.
Don't agree with either. I thought it was boring and that is why it will not win. I do not mind about the women talking in the barn thing. I tend to like dialogue driven movies.
It will be so satisfying when Everything Everywhere All At Once wins Best Picture, just like when Parasite won Best Picture and Jeff thought 1917 was the winner 🤪
Hold on…Scott said Martin McDonagh (spelling?) did not get a best director nomination for Banshees and that’s why it might not win. Well, he certainly DID get a very well deserved nomination for Best Director!
Amazing episode, as always! I'm surprised you guys like Maverick so much more than The Way of Water. Most of the criticisms about one (screenplay is too simplistic, it's an effects-driven film, it's been done before, there's not a lot of "above the line" strength compared to other nominees, etc.) can be applied to the other. Personally, I was much more engrained in the story of The Way of Water than I was with Maverick. Any sequel that can't fully stand on its own misses the mark, and Maverick falls into that trap by including character cameos and references that you can't fully understand if you haven't seen the first film. In my opinion, The Way of Water is better at standing on its' own.
Unless you can show the vote counts of the top 10 considered and how close the votes were and who got in and who missed out.....we're all just guessing on who really got "snubbed".
@@travisearl771 the process is never fair! Netflix doesn’t spend a ridiculous amount of money campaigning to get a fair playing field. What she did was impress her peers and convince them she deserved the award; you know, the whole point of the Oscars (and something anyone can do)!
If we only consider what is "deliberate" then we are ignoring a huge amount of the structural issues that continuously empower privileged people over marginalized people.
@@travisearl771 I’d much rather it be decided by who can impress other top performers than by who can give the best gifts to voters. If we get rid of the very obvious and worse corruption, then we can start to have a conversation about the role personal relationships play. But until then, this whole thing just feels like studios upset that their bribes didn’t work and trying to find a way to punish the poor campaign that succeeded.
nah that women talking conversation was unbelievably frustrating o my god. jeff’s argument wasn’t even very focused either. i’ve not even seen women talking cos it’s not out in the uk yet, but perri i got u. that complete dogmatism is unbearable especially when it’s something this sensitive and topical.
It's disturbing? The movie was boring AS FUCK. You can deliver that message in an entertaining way. Sarah Polley did not. She FAILED in my POV, which is just as VALID as Scott and Perri's.
@@TheInSneider Review or opinion about the actual movie doesn't bother me at all, it's the generalization and assumption that this particular movie won't be seen by men.. sorry but that's BS.. We are talking about Oscars here, not MTV or People's Choice Awards.. It's unfair to dismiss any movie with such an oversimplifications, it's like saying people into real "cinema" won't watch dumb summer blockbuster like Top Gun Maverick.
Multiple things can be true at once. Andrea can be a top 5 performance of the year and thus "deserving" of a nomination. AND we can look at the reality that actresses of colour are far less likely to have their performances catch fire through the film industry. The vast majority of films and actors that are in the running for nominations try to sell themselves to Oscar voters and audiences. Some means of doing this can be corrupt but many aren't. What we need to do is focus on why wonderful performances by white actors often get nominations whereas actresses of colour are less likely to for performances that are considered at the same level by critics. One can easily argue that Danielle Deadwyler was incredibly "deserving" of a nomination, so why is it that her performance doesn't get the same or similar grassroots efforts from the film industry. Yes, some of this is based on individual circumstances but, while things in Hollywood are improving, there is still a bias that certain groups and people don't feel as compelled to watch lower budget indie films that share stories about queer people, women, people of colour, ...etc., unless there is a "major name" involved. And part of this is that large numbers of Oscar voters may not even watch certain films, even if there is a strong contender for a nominee in it. That's where the focus needs to be. We should be super happy for low-budget films getting recognition. The reality though is that some lower budget movies and performances already have a leg up over other ones, not because of anything they have done themselves necessarily, but because of current biases and networks in the film industrial complex.
I feel so bad for Danielle Deadwyler. She appears on almost every best performance list, which is a significant feat in a white-male dominated field, and even though her studio campaign followed the Academy's rules to the T, a herd of rich white women come barging in last minute saying, "The Academy rules actually don't matter," and then claim their candidate (who is a rich white British woman with a well-connected team) is an underdog subverting the Hollywood system 🙄
There is ONLY outrage because the Studios spend SO MUCH $$ campaigning for their actors. There is nothing wrong with a great performance in a small independent film being touted and recognized. Shame on everyone for making a "big deal" out of this. Riseborough is great in everything, and she should be recognized. Studio pressure on The Academy is SHAMFUL!
This will definitely help Andrea, imo - I had no desire to see the film before all this conversation, due to subject matter, and I now have it in the queue to watch this weekend.
Although Andrea's performance was good as it carried the entire film, her character wasn't anything we haven't seen before. Hollywood has been cosplaying homeless drug addicts since forever. In my opinion, Daniel Deadwyler, Viola Davis, and Mia Goth took greater emotional risks for characters that were frankly more interesting and original than Leslie. 1. Michelle Yeoh [EEAAO] 2. Cate Blanchett [Tár] 3. Daniel Deadwyler [Till] 4. Viola Davis [The Woman King] 5. Mia Goth [Pearl] 6. Andrea Riseborough [To Leslie]
Women Talking doesn’t come out in my country for another two weeks, but in regards to the other nine; 1) Everything Everywhere All At Once 2) Top Gun: Maverick 3) Triangle Of Sadness 4) Avatar: The Way Of Water 5) The Banshees Of Inisherin 6) Tár 7) The Fabelmans 8) All Quiet On The Western Front 9) Elvis (& I 100% agree with Jeff & Perri’s assessment)
For anyone curious, this is their average ranking: =1. EEAAO (2.67) =1. Top Gun (2.67) 3. The Fablemans (3) 4. All Quiet on the Western Front (3.33) 5. The Banshees of Inisherin (6.33) =6. Triangle of Sadness (6.67) =6. Tar (6.67) =8. Women Talking (7.33) =8. Elvis (7.33) 10. Avatar: Way of Water (9) The top 4 were well ahead of the rest while Avatar well below.
last year i beat the drum HARD for CODA, and this year, i must've eaten something that made me a chauvinist. this is why the country is the way it is, Nellie. because people like YOU revert to ISTs and ISMs.
So, if we combine all your rankings, it would be... 10. Avatar, the Way of Water (9) 9. Elvis (7,3) 8. Women Talking (7,3) 7. Tàr (6,7) 6. Triangle of Sadness (6,7) 5. The Banshees of Inersherin (6,3) 4. All Quiet on the Western Front (3,3) 3. The Fabelmans (3) 2. Top Gun Maverick (2,7) 1. Everything Everywhere All At Once (2,7)
I've seen all the 10 Best Picture nominees and this is how I would rank them: 1) All Quiet On The Western Front 2) Everything Everywhere All At Once 3) The Fabelmans 4) Avatar: The Way Of Water 5) The Banshees Of Inisherin 6) Triangle Of Sadness 7) Top Gun: Maverick 8) Tár 9) Women Talking 10) Elvis Some background on me is that I'm a guy in his early 30s who has followed award stuff for many years. Maybe stating what I thought should have won Best Picture in the last few years will further show my taste. So when CODA won Best Picture last year I would have much rather seen Belfast, Dune, or West Side Story win. Those were my Top 3 that year. When Nomadland won Best Picture in 2020 my top 3 were instead: Promising Young Woman, The Trial of the Chicago 7, and The Father. When Parasite won Best Picture in 2019 I was very happy with that choice. It was my first choice but second would have been 1917, third place for Little Women, and I'll say a fourth since I loved this year's crop: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. In 2018 when Green Book won my top three were instead: The Favourite, BlacKkKlansman, and I guess Black Panther or A Star is Born. And in 2017 when The Shape of Water won Best Picture my top three nominees that year were: Lady Bird, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, and The Shape of Water or Call Me By Your Name. So yeah a lot of years I do not agree with what won but for the most part the films I rank in the top spots are close to each other and could maybe be in a slightly different order if I think about it a different day.
I really hope everything everywhere doesn’t win best picture. Going through past winners this doesn’t stand up to nearly 99% of the previous winners. Because of it’s offbeat and quirky nature didn’t mean it automatically deserves to win because it was half decent enough. I’m just not a fan, I liked it but didn’t love it at all. I’ve spoke to 3 other people who all say the same thing as me.
Fantastic conversation as always! Perri, if I had a ballot in hand I would rank Women Talking #2. I was blown away by the film and I know other discerning filmgoers - men and women - were as well. I was so captivated by the film and Polley directed the heck out of it.
Andrea Riseborough has that same edgy hunger as Christian Bale. Riceborough who's more than paid her dues, having played more ancillary roles than lead roles in her career. But she has never once not been a total Chameleon! When I saw "Disconnect" 2013 I was already a big fan but absolutely didn't recognize her as the same actress from "Shadow Dancer" When I saw her in "Bloodline" I absolutely didn't recognize her as the same actress from "Oblivion". Damn she's amazing.
She's good, but did she deserve that 5th spot compared to Danielle Deadwyler and Viola Davis? I don't think so. She won that nomination through sheer privilege.
It's not about the movie. Women Talking is far from my favorite... The way you talk about it is upsetting and any woman who's ever had to make a point to a man who speaks in those terms will get it 🤷♀️
@@TheInSneider You honestly act like there is only one way of expressing dislike for a film. Let's say your way is neither intelligent, nor decent, nor gallant and especially not well-argued.
Andrea Riseborough: I don't know anything about this campaign. I did the acting and that's it. What's this? A Oscar nomination for me? Don't mind if I do.
Re Riseborough: JEFF said EXACTLY what so many are thinking, but dare not say in a podcast or public forum. While Deadwyler and Davis were Oscar nomination worthy- esp in a less competitive season- nobody is 'owed' a nomination. Their exclusions are being used by almost every critic and vlogger as opportunities to convince the world how shocked (and non-racist) they all are. By doing so, they also feel justified to tear down other nominees in the category that scored nominations (because we're so outaged, let's make sure Anna de Armas doesn't enjoy her nomination a single day.) Notice this type of cynicism and vitriol doesn't occur in the male actor categories. When Hopkins WON over Boseman 2 years ago, there wasn't a level of outrage anywhere near what's happening with the Best Actress category now- and over 2 nominees NOBODY was expecting would win. Critics blow these things out of proportion, I believe, to cover up the fact that THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT RISEBOROUGH ALL ALONG, BUT EVERYONE DROPPED THE BALL. Thirty years ago -pre-internet- critics would've been RAVING about the performance. Back then, that's what we expected from critics- to INFORM US ABOUT THE LITTLE KNOWN GEMS we'd otherwise never hear about. "To Leslie" has been out for almost a year, Riseborough's performance is PHENOMENAL, and IT SHOULD NOT have taken a grassroots campaign to get the public's attention about it. The real problem is journalism and film review have gone to the wayside-- everyone's a vlogger nowadays, an influencer, a media personality trolling for likes and subscribers to boost their own b rand. Most of the time they don't even evaluate films adequately- they just offer opinions and spoilers based on how the movie made them 'feel' ("it was depressing," "I was bored," "not my type of movie.") So why would they bother discussing some tiny, no-budget indie film like "To Leslie," when surely an UMPTEENTH MARVEL COMICS vlog will attract more clicks and viewers?? The real takeway from this debacle is "HEY CRITICS- and those who claim to be- DO your JOBS."
While all of the talk raises awareness of Riseborough and her film, I don't think it changes things overall. Cate Blanchette and Michelle Yough remain the lead contenders. Meanwhile Riseborough will, no doubt, have an effect on The Academy and its awards going forward.
I beg to differ with your statement that “everybody loves Top Gun Maverick.” I didn’t. I thought it suffered from the same issues as the first “Top Gun”: corny dialogue, a blindly militaristic attitude, thin characters, predictable storyline, and actors who seem to be posing and preening more than acting. Still, the action and cinematography were superior to the first “Top Gun.” I agree with Jeff that this was an especially weak year for movies. I think “Banshees” will win.
30:00 scott's take is like an amalgam of every terrible NPC reaction to way of water, all combined into one horrible frankenstein monster take. 38:28 WHAT?? this is one of the BEST years for films in a LONG time lmfao, what's this guy on about?! if anything, there's a number of amazing films that got LEFT OUT of contention, most notably Decision to Leave, because there wasn't enough space for them all to get nominated. It was an embarrassment of riches lmao what's this guy even talking about?
As a man, I did see Woman Talking, great performances, and screenplay (almost seemed like this centuries 12 Angry Men re-adaptation, do I see it personally as Best Picture level? Not really. Just personal preference. This was where I thought films like Till were gonna come into play or even Woman King. Still I rooting hard for EEAAO, i'd gladly taken Maverick or Bashees too. Febelmans may be the wildcard.
I agree with Jeff that there's a bias from men against Women Talking, the problem is that the bias seems to be more about not watching it or going in totally close-minded. Also not totally sure why he sometimes takes his own opinion of a movie as gospel. I'd argue most people who saw it really liked it...look at the reviews, look at the audience scores on IMDB/Letterboxd. 🤷♂️ p.s. I'm a man who loves it LMAO
“They were never in” Jeff says with glee in speaking of Davis and Deadwyler. I’d love to know why he thinks that. By his logic, precursors don’t matter.
Mostly agree with Jeff on the Riseborough stuff. Think he worded his argument against Women Talking REALLY poorly, even though I got what he was trying to say. Scott, Everything Everywhere All At Once didn't win globe for best musical/comedy, that went to Banshees, and McDonagh did get nominated for best director.
Jeff touches on an interesting point here… A lot of people are very quick to judge the Academy and say they don’t vote because of the right reasons. To all those people I ask: If you were in the Academy, would you vote for who you think throws the best parties or is the best drinking buddy? People are very quick to judge the integrity of others, but we all have a very high regard for our own moral compass. Which is very hypocritical, honestly.
Top 10 chances of winning: 10. *Women Talking* (No chance, no nomination for Sarah Polley or any of the actors) 9. *Avatar: The Way of Water* (would’ve been much higher up if Top Gun weren’t also nominated) 8. *Triangle of Sadness* (Can’t see it winning but it did still get 3 of the biggest nominations so) 7. *Elvis* (It won’t win, but Butler has a good chance and I feel like the academy definitely likes it) 6. *Tár* (I feel like some might place it at number 1, but it doesn’t have enough buzz to win even if Blanchett wins best actress) 5. *All Quiet on the Western* Front* (It has the slightest chance of winning if it somehow wins in almost every other category it’s nominated in) 4. *Top Gun: Maverick* (Preferential ballot gives it a chance, almost everyone likes so it won’t be placed very low for many voters I reckon) 3. *The Fabelmans* (Spielberg could easily win director and it’s a very typical “Oscar film” so it has a good chance) 2. *The Banshees of Inisherin* (1&2 are very close, it could easily win especially if it’s packaged with best actor and best screenplay) 1. *Everything Everywhere All At Once* (It’s clearly loved by the academy since it got the most nominations including categories where it wasn’t expected to get in. This might also be wishful thinking for me)
@@BoomorBust Obviously not, but it shows strong support for a film if it’s packaged with other awards. There are very few instances where the best picture winner haven’t at least got a few more big wins
Best episode of the year! A true debate with passion i agreed with each side on numerous points. And scott is the best middle man. Scott Mantz is a national treasure
@@travisearl771 Agreed. I think they both made the same mistake in thinking their subjective opinions of the movie would be shared by everyone. Jeff argues that the movie is so bad that the only reason anyone would vote for it is for political reasons, not recognising that he may well be in the minority! Likewise, Perri argues that it's such an exceptional film that the only reason it isn't more in the conversation is because people aren't giving it a chance. I side with Perri because Women Talking's quality definitely seems closer to her opinion than Jeff's (hasn't yet come out in my country so can't opine, but I''m waiting anxiously to see it). Ultimately, they could have avoided the debate getting so heated if Jeff had just accepted that others might actually think it's really good and vice versa, focussing just on the objective factors involved in its Oscar chances.
@@sebastiano728 Thank you for presenting the situation in such a cogent and compassionate manner. I was disturbed by the cringeworthy nature of the argument. There's a conversation to be had regarding women in the industry and the worth of WOMEN TALKING versus some kind of quota system or having to keep open a place for a female director but what took place here was not it. Thank you, Sebastian for your post.
@Sebastian O I think you're 100% right. They are letting their subjective opinions on the film create assumptions as to why Woman Talking is or isn't getting support.
Like Jeff said, this is about "best picture." I've seen all the nominees except "Triangle...," and, in my opinion, the number one choice has to be "Tar." In every department, it's the type of film that the Academy SHOULD want to represent the best the artform can offer. Its theme of "identity" is both universal and timeless, and is explored with the type of rich insight and vision the topic deserves.
What Jeff was saying about Deadwyler and Davis not being bumped out is on the surface level true, but also fails to recognize the larger cultural and structural institutions that have led to "Oscars So White" in the first place. While it was likely not malicious, it is very telling that many white actresses were able to rally behind a fellow white actress and pull off a an unprecedentedly successful grassroots campaign. As we know, women of color have largely been left out of the major award categories through the history of the Oscars. We are constantly being given the excuses of "the performances weren't good enough" or "they haven't been in movies with adequate campaigning resources". And yet here we are in a year with multiple black actresses who gave great performances, were larger studio films, and were widely seen as frontrunners. Now suddenly *it is* possible to have a smaller not well-known performance get in, but at the expense of actors of color. The Academy and Hollywood are still empowering the same people of privilege no matter HOW you run a campaign, because that's how it's structured. I wish that a lesser known stellar performance like Andrea Riseborough's in To Leslie getting the nomination was a sign for good changes on the horizon, but in this instance I truly don't think it is.
Also just to note, I am using grassroots very loosely....is it really grassroots if the campaigning is done by wealthy well-connected industry folk, some of whom are actually in The Academy.
Isn't everyone involved here a person of privilege? I mean way more people know who Viola Davis is than AR. Way more people could pick Viola Davis out of a group than AR. I don't think most people had ever heard of AR before this situation. It seems like everyone involved has a ton of privilege, money, and power.
Jeff saying box office doesn't matter one iota?? Would Top Gun have been nominated for Best Picture if it had flopped at the box office?? I doubt it. A strong office does help improve its Oscar chances a lot, especially in terms of generating buzz and excitement about the film.
Best picture nominees ranked This is my opinion please dont judge me i like all of the first 7 1 eeaao 9.5 out of 10 2 elvis 9.1 3 all quiet on the western front 9 4 avatar 2 8 5 fabelmans 7.5 6 top gun 7.4 7 banshees 7 8 triangle of sadness 4 9 tar 3.9 10 havent seen women taking
Box Office doesn’t disqualify a film from Oscar success, but the reason Netflix won’t win Best Picture is because their films don’t enter the arena. Films like Babylon and First Man lost best picture momentum after box office failure, and had Don’t Look Up been a flop at the BO, it might have lost momentum too. So until Netflix plays like everyone else, they can’t win.
Tár, Fabelmans, Women Talking, Triangle of Sadness did not lose momentum after flopping though. How did CODA win Best Picture? It was not a theatrical film either. That Power of the Dog and CODA where the two frontrunners for Picture last year proves that Oscars has passed the bias against streamers.
2 black nominees made *very good* work, campaigned hard all year long, accumulated their own precursor accolades and recognition *from their own peers* as evidenced by their BAFTA and SAG nominations. So YES Jeff - they are very much "in" for Oscar nominations - even Frances Fisher believed it and lobbied against it for Andrea Riseborough! But all it took to dismantle that was just a series of tweets and phone calls over the weekend by a gang of super elite A-list white actresses who want to prop up one of their own. In a way I'm glad that the support for Michelle Williams and Ana held up as a result of this name-and-shame by folks like Frances Fisher. Can we not see how the cards are stacked against even A-list black actors like Viola Davis and how precarious their perceived power actually is?
Although the Frances Fisher post was only one person, it does make you wonder what kind of campaigning and emails were happening outside of the public eye. I mean if she's willing to publicly say that Yeoh Blanchett Deadwyler and Davis were locks and you shouldn't vote for them in first position, WHO KNOWS what was being promoted behind the scenes.
regarding race you are on point, regarding class you should rethink... the systemic inequality forces big studios and a grass-root movement of solidarity, targeting this reality and NOT black actresses, unfortunatelly evolved and intermingled with the reality you describe... On top TILL (because Deadwyler was the biggest snubb this year) is a story unknown to AMPAS voters and that caused a lot of votes... i think the guilt of this year will offer her an Oscar the following years though... So we must understand the complexity of the context, and save our bullets for the right targets. ps i will forever cherish the turmoil ofthis year... I guess the big victims is Deadwyler, Davis and yes Cate Blanchett, despite giving the very best performance of the 21st century so far!, because a portion of her votes will go to Riseborough and YET she loves industry so much that took a stand for Andrea (like she did for Davis and Yeoh for instance) against her own interests... So much to unpack this year!
on top its interesting that best actress category recieves hate when there is diversity (an Asian and a Latino) because of a grassroot solidarity movement among actresses when best Actor has just 5 caucasians and goes unnoticed... mmmm
I respect you bro in everyday, but respectfully, I don't think over 100 million tickets would've been sold for people that wanted to watch the same movie.
I think it would be VERY interesting to see the breakdown of nominations and Oscar votes by demographics. Would likely reveal a lot of interesting dynamics at play. In particular, I'd be curious to see the interesting gaps in gender, age, country of origin, languages spoken, and race/ethnicity that could exist for Best Picture. Genuinely would be so interesting to see the core voting blocs for each movie. I can reflect on each movie and wonder just where each is getting support. Would be certainly interesting to see which movies have the highest controversy coefficients (i.e. greatest standard deviation on ballots) and see what elements of these movies makes them likely to be appreciated by some but not by others.
If box office mattered, amazing blockbusters would get nominated. But from the days of Spielberg to the days of Nolan, it just shows that box office really does not matter, and nor should it! In fact, it is frowned upon historically. TGM is an exception and IMO one of the best movies I have ever seen. And this year was all about bringing people back to the theatres. I think that it is between TGM, EEAAO, Fabelmens and Banshees. With EEAAO as the current favorite.
@@pb.j.1753 Like? Apart from LOTR, and some other movies, we rarely see it happen. Oscars didn't nominate Spielberg for a long time. Why do you think they have expanded till 10 slots for BP?
The question isn’t “oh maybe Andrea Riseborough was just better,” the issue is that When Hollywood rallies behind its friends to make a film more visible it’s curious who and what types of films get this support. Till was going under the radar as well. What about Clemency from a few years ago? When these white indie filmmakers can just cal up Cate Blanchett and co. To campaign all if a sudden then what chance does a new black WOMAN filmmaker have in getting her film out there? They did all the right things. They made money, they were critically acclaimed. They had guild screenings and was nominated at precursors. And yet they still got bumped I for a movie most ppl didn’t know existed a month ago and a movie that almost no one liked (except for me, I dig BLONDE). So if black creatives do all the right things, why can’t they be in the same convos as white leads?! Why was a crowd pleaser like THE WOMAN KING on the bubble? It’s because the majority WHITE members of the academy didn’t prioritize seeing it and don’t see value in black stories. Yet they made time for TO LESLIE which just showed up the week of voting… That’s why. And that’s a real shame…
Lots to unpack here for me. Here are my thoughts: (1) It is offensive to suggest that Riseborough's nomination should be rescinded because there was no major studio backing it, and it was a good old fashion whisper campaign. I think this will only increase her chances of winning. (2) The Academy should seriously consider moving toward 6 nominees rather than 5 for the acting and directing categories. This will only increase opportunity for artists of all colors, sexes, religions, backgrounds to get nominated. We should also reject the concept of nominees "stealing spots" from others. It just comes down a bad rabbit hole. (3) I am a little confused by this segment to be honest. Are these "personal ranking" or "who has the best chance of winning"? Seems like a little of both were used. I would say Banshees, Everything, The Fabelmans, TAR, and Top Gun are the only films with a realistic chance of winning.
1) not offensive. I would argue that but because it was an unfairly run campaign. 2) 5 nominees is fine. All those things you list should not be considered for nominations, just the performances.
@@gregfeasel5874 mentioning other names of candidates on social media when they were not supposed to. A screening that was in the grey area of the rules. Mentioning other names especially could have influenced peoples' vote towards Andrea and not towards other potential nominees.
Seen all but two of the Best Picture nominees (Women Talking hasn't come out in the UK yet and doesn't for another two weeks which is rather annoying, while I have absolutely no interest in Avatar 2 but might watch it just for completism at some point) and my ranking is: 1. Tár 2. Everything Everywhere All At Once 3. Triangle of Sadness 4. All Quiet on the Western Front 5. The Fabelmans 6. Elvis 7. The Banshees of Inisherin 8. Top Gun: Maverick (yes, I am the one person who didn't like or enjoy this film at all).
My ranking: 1. Everything Everywhere All At Once 2. The Banshees of Inisherin 3. Tar 4. Triangle of Sadness 5. The Fabelmans 6. Women Talking 7. All Quiet on the Western Front 8. Top Gun: Maverick 9. Avatar: The Way of Water 10. Elvis
I had the same question Mantz did about The Fabelmans. If it was directed by someone else other than Spielberg how much would people be talking about it?
It’s a tough question to answer because the movie is so intimately tied to Steven’s personal story… But if someone randomly comes across this one on cable and knows nothing about the premise, would the movie still play? I’m really not sure. The movie works really well for me because I’m a massive Spielberg fan and it definitely strikes a chord with movie lovers, but it might be kinda niche.
Not only did my husband and two of my (straight, 30-year-old) guy friends see Women Talking in theaters with me and their wives, they read the book for our book club. *All of us* loved the film, and the only person who didn't like the book that much was one of the women. I think anyone who gives this movie a chance and comes away not liking it has a problem with the pacing, the cinematography, the script, etc... not with the subject matter or the cast being majority women. Tbh, I initially felt the same way about Top Gun as many men do about Women Talking. "Why would I want to see airplanes go vroom? That movie's for men!"
Only one thing is important for the nomination for the Oscar. " Is Andrea a good actress?".Very clear answer -Yes- . Because she is also very flexible actress and can play a wide range of roles and films. 🍀
Dude, that's a common trait many good actors have let alone in a Hollywood system where white roles are plentiful thus giving white actors more opportunities to play a wider range of roles. When you're an actor of color, you have very limited opportunity. Just watch any interview with Michelle Yeoh this year.
@@binaryvoid0101 Hello, Hopefully an Oscar nomination will not be based on an actors skin color, So the academy must consist of international members so that is objektive. But that has nothing to do with Andreas the great as an actress.
@@lotharquinten4284 I never said she wasn't a good actress, just that she benefited from being white because no unknown actor of color would have gotten the same backing that she did.
@@lotharquinten4284 In 2022, approximately 81% of the voting members at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences identified as white, around 67% were men, with a median age of 62 years old.
@@lotharquinten4284 It shouldn't be shocking that the Academy, an institution dominated by old white men, has an implicit preference for white actors, movies about Hollywood, war dramas, historical epics, and biographies lol
Scott, I love you but you misrepresented The Banshees Of Inisherin twice in this video and you gotta do better, man. Corrections: Everything Everywhere All At Once did not win the Golden Globe for Best Picture Comedy…. The Banshees Of Inisherin did. Martin McDonagh did earn an Oscar nomination for Best Director for The Banshees Of Inisherin.
