Criteria for a win - Page 1

http://www.vox.com/culture/2017/2/27/14748228/oscar-best-picture-moonlight-la-la-land-mixup-beatty-dunaway

 

In the past, the ranked-choice system has tilted toward movies about show business, consensus choices that appealed to the entertainment industry, but in 2017 it clearly worked in Moonlight’s favor. Why?

Part of this is thanks to a very smart campaign run by the movie’s studio, A24, which essentially spent the entire awards season hanging out in the runner-up slot, never accruing enough momentum to overtake La La Land, but never fading so much that it was out of the running either. And the Academy’s moves toward developing a more diverse membership, bolstered by a large influx of nominees who don’t fit the typical “older, straight white man” Oscar voter mold, could have also worked in Moonlight’s favor. But that outreach didn’t change the makeup over the Oscar voting body overnight. Something else happened.

Talk to Oscar voters and those connected to them in the weeks leading up to the Oscars, and you heard much more passion for La La Land, but Moonlight was the only other film mentioned at all consistently as everything else faded. (Vulture’s Kyle Buchanan has also talked about this phenomenon.) It certainly didn’t hurt that Moonlight had Plan B Productions — better known as Brad Pitt’s production company — in its corner, either. (Indeed, one of Moonlight’s winners is Pitt’s producing partner Dede Gardner, also an Oscar winner for 12 Years a Slave.)

Moonlight also reflects the Academy’s acceptance of both racially diverse and LGBTQ themes — notable in the wake of two straight years without acting nominees of colorand the previous most famous Oscar upset of them all, which saw the historic gay romance Brokeback Mountain bested by a largely unpredicted victory by Crash. In a way, Moonlightwinning is a symbolic exemplar of the Academy tossing off both of those albatrosses, if only for a single year. 

But that’s not the only explanation for Moonlight’s win. Another contributing factor, among many, may be the fact that Donald Trump is president, Hollywood hates that he’s president, and Academy members may have been looking for ways to symbolically push back against his agenda with their votes. Throughout the night, categories kept going to movies that humanized the targets of Trump’s tweets, proposed laws, and vitriol, whether it was the documentary short winner The White Helmets or the Iranian foreign film winner The Salesman. 

And what better film to embrace if you want to send a message to the president — symbolically — than a beautiful, aching, artistic drama about a poor, gay black man coming of age?

HATE is the driving force here. And it isn't coming from me. Those are your lies. 

 

These are your words beetree: "I knew it would be a neverending political agenda soapbox and that the "winners" wouldn't be based on actually being "best". More like filling in the quota's. (Kind of like a Democratic Convention, come to think of it! LOL)"

So what quotas did Casey Affleck and Emma Stone fill? Or were they the only actors who won for being best? What about best director Damian Chazelle?

The article you posted mentions only one category, best picture, yet you are talking about quotas (I assume the apostrophe is a typo) and winners which implies you mean more than one category. So again, what actors, or other category winners, won because of quotas?

I make connections where you fail. When you fail you make up a lie.

The year before the complaint of the Oscars was that no persons of color won. This year balanced that out. How is that fair criteria? Ergo, the quota is filled, the field is leveled. The Dem Convention backed Hillary because it was her turn. Nobody told that to Bernie. The criteria wasn't being based on the individual.

The criteria of being best in each Oscar category is simply not being based on the craft.

It was craft and a political statement that determined a win. I wasn't interested in the political statement aspect, and I won't be for years to come.

This is the last of me answering you.

I believe Moonlight won best picture because it was a great movie, it was up against stiff competition from Fences, as well as others.  To think it won because of a quota is dismissive of the hard work and talent of all the people involved.

Is there hate in today's society, hell yes and it seems to have become emboldened by the current administration.  Not saying current administration is pushing it, but the campaign trail sure included racist, xenophobic, mysoginistic, and other hateful talk.  Let's hope the current administration can make this a good place to live.

I think when you analyze the individual wins, up against the Best win, it doesn't add up. Making connections doesn't dismiss anything, oddly enough.

I haven't seen any of the movies in question so I have to rely on what is being written, including the Vox article. 

Mindhunt, did you listen to Trump's speech last night? There was a marked change in his tone that is being widely noted.

 

I am hopeful Beetree, however, he has a lot to answer for with his cabinet picks and recent executive orders.  As for the Oscars, I do believe it was not as political as some believe, however, the uspet last year with minorities lacking makes you think.........

Rely on what is written? The article you reference only mentions one category: best picture. YOU are the one bringing up all the categories. Now you are saying you haven't even watched any of the films in question which means you are assuming that people who won did so for reasons other than being the best. Assume...hmmm...isn't that what bigoted people do? They assume someone wins something or obtains something because of their skin color, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, etc. Are you saying that the black actors who won didn't win because their performances were worthy of winning? And you know this not because you actually saw the performances in question but because that is the only way a black person could ever win?

I asked you which winners won because of these quotas that you mentioned. And you brought up the word quota as I don't recall seeing it in the article you posted. Now, you can always refuse to answer any questions but the thing is, you started this thread. If it wasn't to discuss what you posted then why did you create it?

You say I lied. Where on this thread have I lied? If you can't show me where I lied then it means you lied, and you claim you never lie.

You need to accept the reality that not everyone here is part of your fan club. Not everyone here is envious of you or admires you. You are not the best educated or most intelligent person who posts here. You are not the nicest nor the most polite. You want to believe that, and you post about it often enough so that we will all believe it, but it just isn't the case. The fact that you refuse to answer questions on a thread that you created and instead pull the childish tactic of sticking your fingers in your ears and taking your ball and going home is a sure sign of the frustration you feel over not being able to intelligently defend your own words.

You mentioned on another thread how someone couldn't take getting beaten by a woman. The fact that you think in those terms, winning and losing, on an internet forum is telling as you can't take getting beaten either. You can't take it so badly that you needed to start this thread. You say I'm stalking you yet you are the one trying to get my attention with a thread like this. In your hubris you thought it would have turned out differently but all it did was confirm your bigotry.

I am not going down the rabbit hole with you to correct your misinterpretations. That is an abyss without end. Enjoy them for all I care.

@mindhunt, saying that Oscar voters might take into account things other than performance is one thing. Of course that happens. And it applies to whites as well. Was the role that won Pacino his first and only Oscar the best performance of his career? Was it better than the previous 7 roles that earned him a nomination?

With that said, to assume that any black actor who wins is filling some quota is bigoted and ignorant. To assume that they won, as beetree did, based on not having seen the performances in question but by relying on the fact that they were black is bigoted.

beetree said, "I think when you analyze the individual wins, up against the Best win, it doesn't add up."

She thinks this even though she hasn't seen any of the performances in question.