91st Academy Awards (2019)-This is going to be the best Oscars ever!*

I've not tested it, but I suspect I could fart a Police song better than Eddie sang it.

 

Many women hate that movie!

I mention my date in my review - here's that segment:

"When I saw 2004’s Sideways, it occurred as part of a second date. This took place a couple of weeks before the 2005 Oscar ceremony, and I told my date I wanted to check it out since it received a nomination for Best Picture. In fact, I repeated this fact about five times before we got to the theater.

After the flick ended, I asked her what she thought of the film. She made a couple of vague comments about how it was occasionally funny but not much more than that; clearly it didn’t impress her. Since I really enjoyed Sideways, I felt a little irked by her dismissal of it, so I noted that plenty of folks must have liked it since it received the Best Picture nod.

At that point, she began to laugh hysterically. She reacted to this Oscar information as though she’d never heard it before - never mind that I’d stated it so many times earlier in the night. She couldn’t get over the concept that a film she interpreted as meaningless fluff received such high praise. She even stated that she liked Meet the Fockers - one of the biggest wastes of talent ever committed to film - more than Sideways.

There was no third date."

 

There are plenty of reasons to go to theaters beyond "nostalgia".

I've got a pretty nice home theater, but it doesn't compare to a real movie theater.

Also, many people simply enjoy the experience. Go out with friends, get some snacks, have a good time.

People like the communal side of movie-going.

My 65" TV screen - while wonderful - doesn't compare with a massive movie screen...

 

I watched "Favourite" for the 2nd time tonight and I still can't figure out why Colman was in the Best Actress category while Weisz and Stone were Supporting.

I didn't tally each character's screen time, but there's just no way Colman's in this movie more than the other 2.

Honestly, Queen Anne is less important than the other 2. She's almost a MacGuffin: the movie's really about the competition between Sarah and Abigail, with the actions of Anne almost superfluous.

Before anyone pounces, I exaggerate here, but I still think Oscar got it backwards. Colman isn't the lead actor in this movie - she's 3rd on that list!

 

I agree with you, but there are countless other cases where the Academy got the distinction between a lead and a supporting role wrong.

 

Oh, definitely, though off the top of my head, I can't think of an instance that makes less sense to me.

Heck, on the Blu-ray's extras, the movie's producer even says "Favourite" has 3 lead actors!

It always seemed odd that Travolta was up for Lead for "Pulp Fiction" whereas SLJ was Supporting. I guess you could explain it due to the fact Travolta was the only actor to appear in all 4 segments of the film (including the diner wrap-around).

I just don't see a clear rationale for Colman as Lead and the other 2 as Supporting. If I had to pick a Lead, I'd go Weisz, then Stone - but really, all 3 are leads or all 3 are supporting...

 

In this case, I would say that, while I feel Stone gives a better lead performance in The Favourite than she did in La La Land, it’s simply that Stone won her Oscar for best actress just two years ago and the Academy felt it was time to shine the spotlight on someone else.

 

I think that's being overly generous. I don't think voters thought "Emma has a Best Actress award - let's help out someone else!"

Besides, Weisz "only" has Supporting - and as I said, she's arguably the "true lead" in the movie!

Funny thing is that Colman's win would've been less shocking if she'd been Supporting, not Lead. Her Queen Anne seems like the kind of part/performance that gets Supporting consideration more often, as the Oscars seem more open to comedy from Supporting. For the Lead award, they usually want something serious!

Yeah, I know Stone wasn't especially "serious" in "LLL", but that's usually the pattern...

 

I think that happens all the time. The crime in the Best Actress nominations this year is that Claire Foy was left out.

To my mind, Stone is clearly the lead. Her character rises from rags to riches by her wits and defeats Weisz. She is the protagonist of the story.

 

Isn't it the studio and not the Academy that designates who is to be considered "lead" and "supporting"?

 

This article suggests that, while studios do lobby for nominations in particular categories, it’s ultimately the Academy who decides which roles are lead and which are supporting.

What's Lead, What's Supporting -- and Who Really Decides?

 

Yes exactly.

 

Not the Academy as a monolithic thing, but I can certainly see a large enough number of members of the Academy thinking that to determine the winner.

I can also see a certain amount of "who do I want to see give a speech..."

 

Good choice.

 

I find it hard to think these apply to Olivia Colman, mainly because she's not especially famous. It's not like she likely would've had a broad reserve of support from a wide swath of voters based on her career...

 

It’s not only the Oscars who decided Colman was lead. She also won the BAFTA award for leading actress.

 

Did voters get their Oscar ballots after the BAFTAs were announced?

 

Awaiting her nomination...

 

And by Academy rules (unless they secretly changed them recently), "Roma" qualifies. A film has to play theatrically in Los Angeles and New York in theaters for one full week.

 

Is that Anna Kendrick ? Because she WAS nominated for Best Supporting Actress for "Up in the Air"

 

The studios generally decide who to push for what category. So Fox pushed Colman as Best Actress , while pushing Weisz and Stone as Supporting. That's why they take out all those "For Your Consideration" ads.

Interesting thing about Samuel L. Jackson and "Pulp Fiction"- in 1994, the NY Film Critics had him as the runner-up for both Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor

 

I never argued "Roma" failed to meet the extremely loose Academy rules currently in place...

 

The Academy should wipe that "fly over states" smirk off their collective faces and insist that it has to play a week in the top dozen markets.

 

Agreed.

Roma was in 100 theaters within the three-week period before it streamed. I’m not sure how much tighter the Academy could make the rules that would have disqualified it, except maybe requiring a longer window between theatrical release and home video release, streaming or otherwise.

I wonder if next year’s earlier Oscar schedule will affect release patterns. It’s going to be tougher for the average movie nut to see all the nominees unless the movies are released earlier in the season and/or the home video release window is shortened for even more features.

 

I think that's about all they can do, and I could see a minimum 60-day "theatrical window".

Not saying it's gonna happen, but it might. I think the Academy needs to find some way to deal with the "streaming issue"...