Ladybird’s directing is decent but not great or anything
As usual the focus is on who gets nominated and not who gets directing jobs in the first place—this is not a situation where half the movies are directed by women and the HFPA is just sexist. There isn’t parity to begin with, and although recognition of female talent through awards is certainly helpful, it really shouldn’t be the primary means of solving the problem.
At the same time, you have to start somewhere. Pointing out the discrepancy in such a public venue is part of getting the ball rolling.
Ladybird’s directing is decent but not great or anything
As usual the focus is on who gets nominated and not who gets directing jobs in the first place—this is not a situation where half the movies are directed by women and the HFPA is just sexist. There isn’t parity to begin with, and although recognition of female talent through awards is certainly helpful, it really shouldn’t be the primary means of solving the problem.
At the same time, you have to start somewhere. Pointing out the discrepancy in such a public venue is part of getting the ball rolling.
Ladybird’s directing is decent but not great or anything
As usual the focus is on who gets nominated and not who gets directing jobs in the first place—this is not a situation where half the movies are directed by women and the HFPA is just sexist. There isn’t parity to begin with, and although recognition of female talent through awards is certainly helpful, it really shouldn’t be the primary means of solving the problem.
Isn’t all that a massive part of Natalie’s point?
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Ladybird’s directing is decent but not great or anything
As usual the focus is on who gets nominated and not who gets directing jobs in the first place—this is not a situation where half the movies are directed by women and the HFPA is just sexist. There isn’t parity to begin with, and although recognition of female talent through awards is certainly helpful, it really shouldn’t be the primary means of solving the problem.
Isn’t all that a massive part of Natalie’s point?
I’m not sure it’s possible to get all of that nuance out of a one liner at an awards show
If she’s spoken out on this before, good for her, but simply saying “let’s notice the gender of these nominees” is not step 2
Ladybird’s directing is decent but not great or anything
As usual the focus is on who gets nominated and not who gets directing jobs in the first place—this is not a situation where half the movies are directed by women and the HFPA is just sexist. There isn’t parity to begin with, and although recognition of female talent through awards is certainly helpful, it really shouldn’t be the primary means of solving the problem.
Isn’t all that a massive part of Natalie’s point?
I’m not sure it’s possible to get all of that nuance out of a one liner at an awards show
If she’s spoken out on this before, good for her, but simply saying “let’s notice the gender of these nominees” is not step 2
Cool so she shouldn't have said it? Or what's your point?
Ladybird’s directing is decent but not great or anything
As usual the focus is on who gets nominated and not who gets directing jobs in the first place—this is not a situation where half the movies are directed by women and the HFPA is just sexist. There isn’t parity to begin with, and although recognition of female talent through awards is certainly helpful, it really shouldn’t be the primary means of solving the problem.
Isn’t all that a massive part of Natalie’s point?
I’m not sure it’s possible to get all of that nuance out of a one liner at an awards show
If she’s spoken out on this before, good for her, but simply saying “let’s notice the gender of these nominees” is not step 2
Okay, I’m bewildered by this. How is drawing attention to an issue not drawing attention to an issue? How is drawing attention to the gender of the nominees not drawing attention to the why?
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Ladybird’s directing is decent but not great or anything
As usual the focus is on who gets nominated and not who gets directing jobs in the first place—this is not a situation where half the movies are directed by women and the HFPA is just sexist. There isn’t parity to begin with, and although recognition of female talent through awards is certainly helpful, it really shouldn’t be the primary means of solving the problem.
Isn’t all that a massive part of Natalie’s point?
I’m not sure it’s possible to get all of that nuance out of a one liner at an awards show
If she’s spoken out on this before, good for her, but simply saying “let’s notice the gender of these nominees” is not step 2
Cool so she shouldn't have said it? Or what's your point?
My initial post was responding to several posts here in the thread that seemed to imply that the problem here was that Gerwig didn’t get nominated. I disagreed both with the idea that she deserved that nomination and with the implied idea that her getting nominated would have been significant.
I have no problem with people standing on stage at an awards show criticizing that awards show.
I just wish the industry and public at large had more interest in the root causes of this issue, because even in a perfect world awards shows have relatively little power to influence the hiring decisions that really drive the gender gap in above the line positions.
Ladybird’s directing is decent but not great or anything
As usual the focus is on who gets nominated and not who gets directing jobs in the first place—this is not a situation where half the movies are directed by women and the HFPA is just sexist. There isn’t parity to begin with, and although recognition of female talent through awards is certainly helpful, it really shouldn’t be the primary means of solving the problem.
Isn’t all that a massive part of Natalie’s point?
I’m not sure it’s possible to get all of that nuance out of a one liner at an awards show
If she’s spoken out on this before, good for her, but simply saying “let’s notice the gender of these nominees” is not step 2
Cool so she shouldn't have said it? Or what's your point?
My initial post was responding to several posts here in the thread that seemed to imply that the problem here was that Gerwig didn’t get nominated. I disagreed both with the idea that she deserved that nomination and with the implied idea that her getting nominated would have been significant.
I have no problem with people standing on stage at an awards show criticizing that awards show.
I just wish the industry and public at large had more interest in the root causes of this issue, because even in a perfect world awards shows have relatively little power to influence the hiring decisions that really drive the gender gap in above the line positions.
"The first step is admitting you have a problem."
Alone, they have little power. But rubbing the industry's nose in the issue publicly is how you get people interested, and to start doing the work needed.
Again, where is step 2? When does public interest in award shows, which were and will remain of interest, transfer to real action?
People pointing out a problem are not obliged to have a plan for fixing it, and demanding one is a classic bad faith argument.
Instead of demanding a "step 2" from others, create one.
People are incorrectly identifying the problem, and their incorrect formulation does not allow for a step 2, or at least not an effective one. The problem of which the public is being made aware is “not enough women are being nominated,” when the problem is actually that not enough women are getting positions on the kinds of movies that get nominated.
People are yelling really loudly, “Holy shit why is everybody wearing so many sweaters? #uglysweaterz”
I’m saying maybe we should check on the thermostat.
Again, where is step 2? When does public interest in award shows, which were and will remain of interest, transfer to real action?
People pointing out a problem are not obliged to have a plan for fixing it, and demanding one is a classic bad faith argument.
Instead of demanding a "step 2" from others, create one.
People are incorrectly identifying the problem, and their incorrect formulation does not allow for a step 2, or at least not an effective one. The problem of which the public is being made aware is “not enough women are being nominated,” when the problem is actually that not enough women are getting positions on the kinds of movies that get nominated.
People are yelling really loudly, “Holy shit why is everybody wearing so many sweaters? #uglysweaterz”
I’m saying maybe we should check on the thermostat.
You're arguing that the two issues are disjoint, when in fact they are very much intimately related. Getting people to think about "not enough women are being nominated" will in turn get them to think about the root causes - of which "women aren't getting the positions that will get them nominated" is one.
They're not incorrectly identifying the problem, they're identifying a larger problem of which your issue is part of.
Again, where is step 2? When does public interest in award shows, which were and will remain of interest, transfer to real action?
People pointing out a problem are not obliged to have a plan for fixing it, and demanding one is a classic bad faith argument.
Instead of demanding a "step 2" from others, create one.
People are incorrectly identifying the problem, and their incorrect formulation does not allow for a step 2, or at least not an effective one. The problem of which the public is being made aware is “not enough women are being nominated,” when the problem is actually that not enough women are getting positions on the kinds of movies that get nominated.
People are yelling really loudly, “Holy shit why is everybody wearing so many sweaters? #uglysweaterz”
I’m saying maybe we should check on the thermostat.
You're arguing that the two issues are disjoint, when in fact they are very much intimately related. Getting people to think about "not enough women are being nominated" will in turn get them to think about the root causes - of which "women aren't getting the positions that will get them nominated" is one.
They're not incorrectly identifying the problem, they're identifying a larger problem of which your issue is part of.
Sweater wearing is intimately related to the temperature of the room, but that doesn’t make it the right focus necessarily.
You argue that raising awareness of the issue is valuable. I ask for some evidence that awareness results in action, and according to you that’s arguing in bad faith. What position would you like me to hold, exactly? That the problem of gender representation in film is well in hand and I shouldn’t concern myself with its progress or methods?
Again, where is step 2? When does public interest in award shows, which were and will remain of interest, transfer to real action?
People pointing out a problem are not obliged to have a plan for fixing it, and demanding one is a classic bad faith argument.
Instead of demanding a "step 2" from others, create one.
People are incorrectly identifying the problem, and their incorrect formulation does not allow for a step 2, or at least not an effective one. The problem of which the public is being made aware is “not enough women are being nominated,” when the problem is actually that not enough women are getting positions on the kinds of movies that get nominated.
People are yelling really loudly, “Holy shit why is everybody wearing so many sweaters? #uglysweaterz”
I’m saying maybe we should check on the thermostat.
You're arguing that the two issues are disjoint, when in fact they are very much intimately related. Getting people to think about "not enough women are being nominated" will in turn get them to think about the root causes - of which "women aren't getting the positions that will get them nominated" is one.
They're not incorrectly identifying the problem, they're identifying a larger problem of which your issue is part of.
Sweater wearing is intimately related to the temperature of the room, but that doesn’t make it the right focus necessarily.
You argue that raising awareness of the issue is valuable. I ask for some evidence that awareness results in action, and according to you that’s arguing in bad faith. What position would you like me to hold, exactly? That the problem of gender representation in film is well in hand and I shouldn’t concern myself with its progress or methods?
Maybe don't respond to the fact someone is pointing out consequences of the patriarchy and sexism in Hollywood with "what are you going to do about it"?
Is it on women to fix this? Maybe the question that should follow Natalie's comment is "what can I do about this?" (apparently, advocating for the female director whose film received many other nominations to be nominated is not on the list of things that should be done, though...)
Again, where is step 2? When does public interest in award shows, which were and will remain of interest, transfer to real action?
People pointing out a problem are not obliged to have a plan for fixing it, and demanding one is a classic bad faith argument.
Instead of demanding a "step 2" from others, create one.
People are incorrectly identifying the problem, and their incorrect formulation does not allow for a step 2, or at least not an effective one. The problem of which the public is being made aware is “not enough women are being nominated,” when the problem is actually that not enough women are getting positions on the kinds of movies that get nominated.
People are yelling really loudly, “Holy shit why is everybody wearing so many sweaters? #uglysweaterz”
I’m saying maybe we should check on the thermostat.
You're arguing that the two issues are disjoint, when in fact they are very much intimately related. Getting people to think about "not enough women are being nominated" will in turn get them to think about the root causes - of which "women aren't getting the positions that will get them nominated" is one.
They're not incorrectly identifying the problem, they're identifying a larger problem of which your issue is part of.
Sweater wearing is intimately related to the temperature of the room, but that doesn’t make it the right focus necessarily.
You argue that raising awareness of the issue is valuable. I ask for some evidence that awareness results in action, and according to you that’s arguing in bad faith. What position would you like me to hold, exactly? That the problem of gender representation in film is well in hand and I shouldn’t concern myself with its progress or methods?
What I'd like you to do is stop putting the cart before the horse. This specific movement is in its infancy, and you're arguing that they should be doing more. Right now, the people who you need to act mostly don't think there's a problem, or at best view it academically. You need to get people to know deep down there's a problem.
As for awareness leading to action, we saw that throughout last year. Before people will act on an issue, they need to know it is one.
Ladybird’s directing is decent but not great or anything
As usual the focus is on who gets nominated and not who gets directing jobs in the first place—this is not a situation where half the movies are directed by women and the HFPA is just sexist. There isn’t parity to begin with, and although recognition of female talent through awards is certainly helpful, it really shouldn’t be the primary means of solving the problem.
Isn’t all that a massive part of Natalie’s point?
I’m not sure it’s possible to get all of that nuance out of a one liner at an awards show
If she’s spoken out on this before, good for her, but simply saying “let’s notice the gender of these nominees” is not step 2
Cool so she shouldn't have said it? Or what's your point?
My initial post was responding to several posts here in the thread that seemed to imply that the problem here was that Gerwig didn’t get nominated. I disagreed both with the idea that she deserved that nomination and with the implied idea that her getting nominated would have been significant.
I have no problem with people standing on stage at an awards show criticizing that awards show.
I just wish the industry and public at large had more interest in the root causes of this issue, because even in a perfect world awards shows have relatively little power to influence the hiring decisions that really drive the gender gap in above the line positions.
I mean, I don't necessarily think Scott or McDonagh "deserved" to be considered among the best directors of the year either (I haven't see The Post, maybe Spielberg did? Maybe not? Doesn't matter, because he's Spielberg, and he's going to get nominated), but they got in. I mean, this is a category that has nominated some truly mediocre directing efforts by men, and only like... 3(?) women since the turn of the century. As bad as Hollywood's representation problem is with women directing films, it's not accurately reflected here.
But yes, there are absolutely other areas that are important, like making sure women who do get inspired to direct films aren't shunned by the industry, and that there are welcoming, inclusive programs to foster young talent. And then that there are studios that are actually willing to work with female directors. People like Eva Longoria and Reese Witherspoon are doing good work in that regard with their production studios -- we need more of that, too. Women who have managed to secure a degree of power and influence using that to help better the situation (since clearly most of the men in Hollywood can't be bothered).
I don't know. The situation sucks, and I have a friend who was basically driven out of Hollywood by these exact circumstances, and it's awful.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
+2
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Again, where is step 2? When does public interest in award shows, which were and will remain of interest, transfer to real action?
People pointing out a problem are not obliged to have a plan for fixing it, and demanding one is a classic bad faith argument.
Instead of demanding a "step 2" from others, create one.
People are incorrectly identifying the problem, and their incorrect formulation does not allow for a step 2, or at least not an effective one. The problem of which the public is being made aware is “not enough women are being nominated,” when the problem is actually that not enough women are getting positions on the kinds of movies that get nominated.
People are yelling really loudly, “Holy shit why is everybody wearing so many sweaters? #uglysweaterz”
I’m saying maybe we should check on the thermostat.
You're arguing that the two issues are disjoint, when in fact they are very much intimately related. Getting people to think about "not enough women are being nominated" will in turn get them to think about the root causes - of which "women aren't getting the positions that will get them nominated" is one.
They're not incorrectly identifying the problem, they're identifying a larger problem of which your issue is part of.
Sweater wearing is intimately related to the temperature of the room, but that doesn’t make it the right focus necessarily.
You argue that raising awareness of the issue is valuable. I ask for some evidence that awareness results in action, and according to you that’s arguing in bad faith. What position would you like me to hold, exactly? That the problem of gender representation in film is well in hand and I shouldn’t concern myself with its progress or methods?
Maybe don't respond to the fact someone is pointing out consequences of the patriarchy and sexism in Hollywood with "what are you going to do about it"?
I guess I’m saying that it feels like a lot of the dialogue around this issue focuses too much on the patriarchy of the awards themselves, not of Hollywood.
Is it on women to fix this?
Of course not, and I never said it was.
Maybe the question that should follow Natalie's comment is "what can I do about this?" (apparently, advocating for the female director whose film received many other nominations to be nominated is not on the list of things that should be done, though...)
But this illustrates my position, which is that whether Greta Gerwig’s pedestrian direction receives a nomination is really a very minor thing in terms of this problem. Greta Gerwig got to direct a movie! That’s a success story. How many women get nominated is an indicator of how many women are given the opportunity to make films worthy of nomination, it’s not an end in and of itself. The end is women getting to make movies. The problem is how much gas is in the tank, and no amount of supporting the needle is going to change that.
Again, where is step 2? When does public interest in award shows, which were and will remain of interest, transfer to real action?
People pointing out a problem are not obliged to have a plan for fixing it, and demanding one is a classic bad faith argument.
Instead of demanding a "step 2" from others, create one.
People are incorrectly identifying the problem, and their incorrect formulation does not allow for a step 2, or at least not an effective one. The problem of which the public is being made aware is “not enough women are being nominated,” when the problem is actually that not enough women are getting positions on the kinds of movies that get nominated.
People are yelling really loudly, “Holy shit why is everybody wearing so many sweaters? #uglysweaterz”
I’m saying maybe we should check on the thermostat.
You're arguing that the two issues are disjoint, when in fact they are very much intimately related. Getting people to think about "not enough women are being nominated" will in turn get them to think about the root causes - of which "women aren't getting the positions that will get them nominated" is one.
They're not incorrectly identifying the problem, they're identifying a larger problem of which your issue is part of.
Sweater wearing is intimately related to the temperature of the room, but that doesn’t make it the right focus necessarily.
You argue that raising awareness of the issue is valuable. I ask for some evidence that awareness results in action, and according to you that’s arguing in bad faith. What position would you like me to hold, exactly? That the problem of gender representation in film is well in hand and I shouldn’t concern myself with its progress or methods?
What I'd like you to do is stop putting the cart before the horse. This specific movement is in its infancy, and you're arguing that they should be doing more. Right now, the people who you need to act mostly don't think there's a problem, or at best view it academically. You need to get people to know deep down there's a problem.
As for awareness leading to action, we saw that throughout last year. Before people will act on an issue, they need to know it is one.
I care about this issue and I’m sorry if I’m impatient to see it go from hashtags and jokes to real action, like the hiring efforts linked upthread.
As minor points out, there are people and power structures responsible for the bullshit state of affairs where half of film students are women and then something happens and on the other side almost none of the top directors are women. Of those power structures the awards themselves seem to me like the least significant—particularly when there’s a notable history of those women who do win nominations and even awards failing to continue or improve their careers, while men springboard from awards to helming the next Marvel movie.
Maybe the awards are the best way to build awareness and maybe we all need to wait for that process to happen. But I worry that people don’t understand the nuances of the interrelationship between the industry and the awards results, and that that will lead to things like “women happened to get nominated this year, problem solved!” and “darn those dastardly HFPA fuckers, if they were just more enlightened things would be fine.”
And I’m not sure that me saying “maybe we should figure out a way to hire more women” undermines the effort to get people to care about hiring more women.
I see there's been no mention of the most important film award: the Palm Dog award for best canine performance of the year
Standard white poodle Einstein took home the big prize, the Palm Dog award, for his performance in his The Meyerowitz Stories, while a black German shepherd named Lupo got the Grand Jury Prize for the pup’s role in Ava.
“Call Me by Your Name”
“Darkest Hour”
“Dunkirk”
“Get Out”
“Lady Bird”
“Phantom Thread”
“The Post”
“The Shape of Water”
“Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”
Lead Actor:
Timothée Chalamet, “Call Me by Your Name”
Daniel Day-Lewis, “Phantom Thread”
Daniel Kaluuya, “Get Out”
Gary Oldman, “Darkest Hour”
Denzel Washington, “Roman J. Israel, Esq.”
Lead Actress:
Sally Hawkins, “The Shape of Water”
Frances McDormand, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”
Margot Robbie, “I, Tonya”
Saoirse Ronan, “Lady Bird”
Meryl Streep, “The Post”
Supporting Actor:
Willem Dafoe, “The Florida Project”
Woody Harrelson, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”
Richard Jenkins, “The Shape of Water”
Christopher Plummer, “All the Money in the World”
Sam Rockwell, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”
Supporting Actress:
Mary J. Blige, “Mudbound”
Allison Janney, “I, Tonya”
Lesley Manville, “Phantom Thread”
Laurie Metcalf, “Lady Bird”
Octavia Spencer, “The Shape of Water”
Director:
“Dunkirk,” Christopher Nolan
“Get Out,” Jordan Peele
“Lady Bird,” Greta Gerwig
“Phantom Thread,” Paul Thomas Anderson
“The Shape of Water,” Guillermo del Toro
Animated Feature:
“The Boss Baby”
“The Breadwinner”
“Coco”
“Ferdinand”
“Loving Vincent”
Animated Short:
“DeKalb Elementary”
“The Eleven O’Clock”
“My Nephew Emmett”
“The Silent Child”
“Watu Wote/All of Us”
Adapted Screenplay:
“Call Me by Your Name,” James Ivory
“The Disaster Artist,” Scott Neustadter & Michael H. Weber
“Logan,” Scott Frank & James Mangold and Michael Green
“Molly’s Game,” Aaron Sorkin
“Mudbound,” Virgil Williams and Dee Rees
Original Screenplay:
“The Big Sick,” Emily V. Gordon & Kumail Nanjiani
“Get Out,” Jordan Peele
“Lady Bird,” Greta Gerwig
“The Shape of Water,” Guillermo del Toro, Vanessa Taylor
“Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri,” Martin McDonagh
Cinematography:
“Blade Runner 2049,” Roger Deakins
“Darkest Hour,” Bruno Delbonnel
“Dunkirk,” Hoyte van Hoytema
“Mudbound,” Rachel Morrison
“The Shape of Water,” Dan Laustsen
Best Documentary Feature:
“Abacus: Small Enough to Jail”
“Faces Places”
“Icarus”
“Last Men in Aleppo”
“Strong Island”
Best Documentary Short Subject:
“Edith+Eddie”
“Heaven is a Traffic Jam on the 405”
“Heroin(e)”
“Knife Skills”
“Traffic Stop”
“A Fantastic Woman” (Chile)
“The Insult” (Lebanon)
“Loveless” (Russia)
“On Body and Soul (Hungary)
“The Square” (Sweden)
Film Editing:
“Baby Driver,” Jonathan Amos, Paul Machliss
“Dunkirk,” Lee Smith
“I, Tonya,” Tatiana S. Riegel
“The Shape of Water,” Sidney Wolinsky
“Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri,” Jon Gregory
Sound Editing:
“Baby Driver,” Julian Slater
“Blade Runner 2049,” Mark Mangini, Theo Green
“Dunkirk,” Alex Gibson, Richard King
“The Shape of Water,” Nathan Robitaille
“Star Wars: The Last Jedi,” Ren Klyce, Matthew Wood
Sound Mixing:
“Baby Driver,” Mary H. Ellis, Julian Slater, Tim Cavagin
“Blade Runner 2049,” Mac Ruth, Ron Bartlett, Doug Hephill
“Dunkirk,” Mark Weingarten, Gregg Landaker, Gary A. Rizzo
“The Shape of Water,” Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke, Brad Zoern
“Star Wars: The Last Jedi,” Stuart Wilson, Ren Klyce, David Parker, Michael Semanick
Production Design:
“Beauty and the Beast”
“Blade Runner 2049″
“Darkest Hour”
“Dunkirk”
“The Shape of Water”
Original Score:
“Dunkirk,” Hans Zimmer
“Phantom Thread,” Jonny Greenwood
“The Shape of Water,” Alexandre Desplat
“Star Wars: The Last Jedi,” John Williams
“Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri,” Carter Burwell
Original Song:
“Mighty River” from “Mudbound,” Mary J. Blige
“Mystery of Love” from “Call Me by Your Name,” Sufjan Stevens
“Remember Me” from “Coco,” Kristen Anderson-Lopez, Robert Lopez
“Stand Up for Something” from “Marshall,” Diane Warren, Common
“This Is Me” from “The Greatest Showman,” Benj Pasek, Justin Paul
Makeup and Hair:
“Darkest Hour”
“Victoria and Abdul”
“Wonder”
Costume Design:
“Beauty and the Beast”
“Darkest Hour
“Phantom Thread”
“The Shape of Water”
“Victoria and Abdul”
Visual Effects:
“Blade Runner 2049”
“Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
“Kong: Skull Island”
“Star Wars: The Last Jedi”
“War for the Planet of the Apes”
Again, where is step 2? When does public interest in award shows, which were and will remain of interest, transfer to real action?
People pointing out a problem are not obliged to have a plan for fixing it, and demanding one is a classic bad faith argument.
Instead of demanding a "step 2" from others, create one.
People are incorrectly identifying the problem, and their incorrect formulation does not allow for a step 2, or at least not an effective one. The problem of which the public is being made aware is “not enough women are being nominated,” when the problem is actually that not enough women are getting positions on the kinds of movies that get nominated.
People are yelling really loudly, “Holy shit why is everybody wearing so many sweaters? #uglysweaterz”
I’m saying maybe we should check on the thermostat.
Part of getting to a step 2 is establishing that the industry has a big problem, highlighting a Hollywood award show is an immense opportunity to do this since it's where everyone in the industry (actors, directors, screenwriters, make up artists etc) revolve around. These people will start to care when award shows bring this up rather than just flatter their egos.
The bigwigs will have to shamed into doing something, and before that happens requires pressure for them to acknowledge it first. The industry shouldn't to wait for them to die off.
Mother! got snubbed all over (no best cinematography nomination? Come on), but pretty straightforward nominations aside from that. Cool to see Sufjan Stevens nominated for an Oscar!
Nothing for Wonder Woman. It probably didn’t deserve even a token technical nomination, but kind of surprising to see it shut out.
The Last Jedi getting nominated in the sound categories is kind of ironic.
WW was a fantastic movie, if they had "best patriqrchy smashing" I'd give it the nom, but otherwise it doesn't fit any of the traditional molds for Oscar films.
I don't mind because the Oscars are pretty dumb anyways. WW can sit on its pile of money made worldwide and smirk.
In years like this they really should increase the slots and add categories when it's appropriate so every movie worth it gets a shot at being nominated.
Blade Runner 2049 should be nominated for Best Director, Best Cinematography and Best Picture.
I think BR2049 deserves more nods, but I'm fine with the number of nominees. I mean, every movie does have a shot at being nominated.
They have to pass the gauntlet first, and those slots fill up quick if acclaimed directors like Spielberg are producing material. Not to mention any films whose production companies don't grease the wheels enough will get left out regardless.
Nothing for Wonder Woman. It probably didn’t deserve even a token technical nomination, but kind of surprising to see it shut out.
The Last Jedi getting nominated in the sound categories is kind of ironic.
WW was a fantastic movie, if they had "best patriqrchy smashing" I'd give it the nom, but otherwise it doesn't fit any of the traditional molds for Oscar films.
I don't mind because the Oscars are pretty dumb anyways. WW can sit on its pile of money made worldwide and smirk.
Don’t know if I’d go as far as “fantastic”, but usually “well-reviewed plus piles of cash plus cultural impact” leads to something...even if it’s just sound, costuming, special effects, etc...but I couldn’t really argue it deserves to be there more than any of the actual nominees.
And Academy-Award winning Suicide Squad still stands alone in the DCEU...
I think BR2049 deserves more nods, but I'm fine with the number of nominees. I mean, every movie does have a shot at being nominated.
They have to pass the gauntlet first, and those slots fill up quick if acclaimed directors like Spielberg are producing material. Not to mention any films whose production companies don't grease the wheels enough will get left out regardless.
I think BR2049 deserves more nods, but I'm fine with the number of nominees. I mean, every movie does have a shot at being nominated.
They have to pass the gauntlet first, and those slots fill up quick if acclaimed directors like Spielberg are producing material. Not to mention any films whose production companies don't grease the wheels enough will get left out regardless.
That's a problem with the people voting, not the process.
Honestly, I think production design might be the hardest category. BladeRunner, Darkest Hour, and Shape of Water all had amazing sets and designs that really immersed the viewers in their worlds. Each one of those films had some of the best production design I've ever seen.
+6
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
That animation slate is garbage. Even ignoring Lego Batman, by all accounts there were multiple Japanese films this year very worthy of nomination.
In fact there were probably a whole slew of movies that should have been picked over fucking Boss Baby.
I think BR2049 deserves more nods, but I'm fine with the number of nominees. I mean, every movie does have a shot at being nominated.
They have to pass the gauntlet first, and those slots fill up quick if acclaimed directors like Spielberg are producing material. Not to mention any films whose production companies don't grease the wheels enough will get left out regardless.
That's a problem with the people voting, not the process.
It's both the people voting*, and the process.
* which has a whole lot of issues in itself, where it should be reformed. One example is supposedly all they need to do is get x amount of members in a screening to show disapproval while watching a movie and it'll shut down then and there rather then watching it all the way through
Posts
At the same time, you have to start somewhere. Pointing out the discrepancy in such a public venue is part of getting the ball rolling.
Do we ever get to step 2 or what?
Isn’t all that a massive part of Natalie’s point?
I’m not sure it’s possible to get all of that nuance out of a one liner at an awards show
If she’s spoken out on this before, good for her, but simply saying “let’s notice the gender of these nominees” is not step 2
Cool so she shouldn't have said it? Or what's your point?
Okay, I’m bewildered by this. How is drawing attention to an issue not drawing attention to an issue? How is drawing attention to the gender of the nominees not drawing attention to the why?
My initial post was responding to several posts here in the thread that seemed to imply that the problem here was that Gerwig didn’t get nominated. I disagreed both with the idea that she deserved that nomination and with the implied idea that her getting nominated would have been significant.
I have no problem with people standing on stage at an awards show criticizing that awards show.
I just wish the industry and public at large had more interest in the root causes of this issue, because even in a perfect world awards shows have relatively little power to influence the hiring decisions that really drive the gender gap in above the line positions.
"The first step is admitting you have a problem."
Alone, they have little power. But rubbing the industry's nose in the issue publicly is how you get people interested, and to start doing the work needed.
People pointing out a problem are not obliged to have a plan for fixing it, and demanding one is a classic bad faith argument.
Instead of demanding a "step 2" from others, create one.
People are incorrectly identifying the problem, and their incorrect formulation does not allow for a step 2, or at least not an effective one. The problem of which the public is being made aware is “not enough women are being nominated,” when the problem is actually that not enough women are getting positions on the kinds of movies that get nominated.
People are yelling really loudly, “Holy shit why is everybody wearing so many sweaters? #uglysweaterz”
I’m saying maybe we should check on the thermostat.
http://deadline.com/2016/08/fx-ceo-john-landgraff-female-non-white-directors-1201800952/
http://deadline.com/2017/08/nbc-female-forward-initiative-women-episodic-directors-1202141426/
You could reasonably question how serious these pledges, goals, and targets are, though.
You're arguing that the two issues are disjoint, when in fact they are very much intimately related. Getting people to think about "not enough women are being nominated" will in turn get them to think about the root causes - of which "women aren't getting the positions that will get them nominated" is one.
They're not incorrectly identifying the problem, they're identifying a larger problem of which your issue is part of.
Sweater wearing is intimately related to the temperature of the room, but that doesn’t make it the right focus necessarily.
You argue that raising awareness of the issue is valuable. I ask for some evidence that awareness results in action, and according to you that’s arguing in bad faith. What position would you like me to hold, exactly? That the problem of gender representation in film is well in hand and I shouldn’t concern myself with its progress or methods?
Maybe don't respond to the fact someone is pointing out consequences of the patriarchy and sexism in Hollywood with "what are you going to do about it"?
Is it on women to fix this? Maybe the question that should follow Natalie's comment is "what can I do about this?" (apparently, advocating for the female director whose film received many other nominations to be nominated is not on the list of things that should be done, though...)
What I'd like you to do is stop putting the cart before the horse. This specific movement is in its infancy, and you're arguing that they should be doing more. Right now, the people who you need to act mostly don't think there's a problem, or at best view it academically. You need to get people to know deep down there's a problem.
As for awareness leading to action, we saw that throughout last year. Before people will act on an issue, they need to know it is one.
I mean, I don't necessarily think Scott or McDonagh "deserved" to be considered among the best directors of the year either (I haven't see The Post, maybe Spielberg did? Maybe not? Doesn't matter, because he's Spielberg, and he's going to get nominated), but they got in. I mean, this is a category that has nominated some truly mediocre directing efforts by men, and only like... 3(?) women since the turn of the century. As bad as Hollywood's representation problem is with women directing films, it's not accurately reflected here.
But yes, there are absolutely other areas that are important, like making sure women who do get inspired to direct films aren't shunned by the industry, and that there are welcoming, inclusive programs to foster young talent. And then that there are studios that are actually willing to work with female directors. People like Eva Longoria and Reese Witherspoon are doing good work in that regard with their production studios -- we need more of that, too. Women who have managed to secure a degree of power and influence using that to help better the situation (since clearly most of the men in Hollywood can't be bothered).
I don't know. The situation sucks, and I have a friend who was basically driven out of Hollywood by these exact circumstances, and it's awful.
I guess I’m saying that it feels like a lot of the dialogue around this issue focuses too much on the patriarchy of the awards themselves, not of Hollywood.
Of course not, and I never said it was.
But this illustrates my position, which is that whether Greta Gerwig’s pedestrian direction receives a nomination is really a very minor thing in terms of this problem. Greta Gerwig got to direct a movie! That’s a success story. How many women get nominated is an indicator of how many women are given the opportunity to make films worthy of nomination, it’s not an end in and of itself. The end is women getting to make movies. The problem is how much gas is in the tank, and no amount of supporting the needle is going to change that.
—
I care about this issue and I’m sorry if I’m impatient to see it go from hashtags and jokes to real action, like the hiring efforts linked upthread.
As minor points out, there are people and power structures responsible for the bullshit state of affairs where half of film students are women and then something happens and on the other side almost none of the top directors are women. Of those power structures the awards themselves seem to me like the least significant—particularly when there’s a notable history of those women who do win nominations and even awards failing to continue or improve their careers, while men springboard from awards to helming the next Marvel movie.
Maybe the awards are the best way to build awareness and maybe we all need to wait for that process to happen. But I worry that people don’t understand the nuances of the interrelationship between the industry and the awards results, and that that will lead to things like “women happened to get nominated this year, problem solved!” and “darn those dastardly HFPA fuckers, if they were just more enlightened things would be fine.”
And I’m not sure that me saying “maybe we should figure out a way to hire more women” undermines the effort to get people to care about hiring more women.
https://www.thisdogslife.co/the-cannes-festival-crowns-the-top-pooch-with-its-palm-dog-award/
“Call Me by Your Name”
“Darkest Hour”
“Dunkirk”
“Get Out”
“Lady Bird”
“Phantom Thread”
“The Post”
“The Shape of Water”
“Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”
Lead Actor:
Timothée Chalamet, “Call Me by Your Name”
Daniel Day-Lewis, “Phantom Thread”
Daniel Kaluuya, “Get Out”
Gary Oldman, “Darkest Hour”
Denzel Washington, “Roman J. Israel, Esq.”
Lead Actress:
Sally Hawkins, “The Shape of Water”
Frances McDormand, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”
Margot Robbie, “I, Tonya”
Saoirse Ronan, “Lady Bird”
Meryl Streep, “The Post”
Supporting Actor:
Willem Dafoe, “The Florida Project”
Woody Harrelson, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”
Richard Jenkins, “The Shape of Water”
Christopher Plummer, “All the Money in the World”
Sam Rockwell, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”
Supporting Actress:
Mary J. Blige, “Mudbound”
Allison Janney, “I, Tonya”
Lesley Manville, “Phantom Thread”
Laurie Metcalf, “Lady Bird”
Octavia Spencer, “The Shape of Water”
Director:
“Dunkirk,” Christopher Nolan
“Get Out,” Jordan Peele
“Lady Bird,” Greta Gerwig
“Phantom Thread,” Paul Thomas Anderson
“The Shape of Water,” Guillermo del Toro
Animated Feature:
“The Boss Baby”
“The Breadwinner”
“Coco”
“Ferdinand”
“Loving Vincent”
Animated Short:
“DeKalb Elementary”
“The Eleven O’Clock”
“My Nephew Emmett”
“The Silent Child”
“Watu Wote/All of Us”
Adapted Screenplay:
“Call Me by Your Name,” James Ivory
“The Disaster Artist,” Scott Neustadter & Michael H. Weber
“Logan,” Scott Frank & James Mangold and Michael Green
“Molly’s Game,” Aaron Sorkin
“Mudbound,” Virgil Williams and Dee Rees
Original Screenplay:
“The Big Sick,” Emily V. Gordon & Kumail Nanjiani
“Get Out,” Jordan Peele
“Lady Bird,” Greta Gerwig
“The Shape of Water,” Guillermo del Toro, Vanessa Taylor
“Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri,” Martin McDonagh
Cinematography:
“Blade Runner 2049,” Roger Deakins
“Darkest Hour,” Bruno Delbonnel
“Dunkirk,” Hoyte van Hoytema
“Mudbound,” Rachel Morrison
“The Shape of Water,” Dan Laustsen
Best Documentary Feature:
“Abacus: Small Enough to Jail”
“Faces Places”
“Icarus”
“Last Men in Aleppo”
“Strong Island”
Best Documentary Short Subject:
“Edith+Eddie”
“Heaven is a Traffic Jam on the 405”
“Heroin(e)”
“Knife Skills”
“Traffic Stop”
Best Live Action Short Film:
“Dear Basketball”
“Garden Party”
“Lou”
“Negative Space”
“Revolting Rhymes”
Best Foreign Language Film:
“A Fantastic Woman” (Chile)
“The Insult” (Lebanon)
“Loveless” (Russia)
“On Body and Soul (Hungary)
“The Square” (Sweden)
Film Editing:
“Baby Driver,” Jonathan Amos, Paul Machliss
“Dunkirk,” Lee Smith
“I, Tonya,” Tatiana S. Riegel
“The Shape of Water,” Sidney Wolinsky
“Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri,” Jon Gregory
Sound Editing:
“Baby Driver,” Julian Slater
“Blade Runner 2049,” Mark Mangini, Theo Green
“Dunkirk,” Alex Gibson, Richard King
“The Shape of Water,” Nathan Robitaille
“Star Wars: The Last Jedi,” Ren Klyce, Matthew Wood
Sound Mixing:
“Baby Driver,” Mary H. Ellis, Julian Slater, Tim Cavagin
“Blade Runner 2049,” Mac Ruth, Ron Bartlett, Doug Hephill
“Dunkirk,” Mark Weingarten, Gregg Landaker, Gary A. Rizzo
“The Shape of Water,” Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke, Brad Zoern
“Star Wars: The Last Jedi,” Stuart Wilson, Ren Klyce, David Parker, Michael Semanick
Production Design:
“Beauty and the Beast”
“Blade Runner 2049″
“Darkest Hour”
“Dunkirk”
“The Shape of Water”
Original Score:
“Dunkirk,” Hans Zimmer
“Phantom Thread,” Jonny Greenwood
“The Shape of Water,” Alexandre Desplat
“Star Wars: The Last Jedi,” John Williams
“Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri,” Carter Burwell
Original Song:
“Mighty River” from “Mudbound,” Mary J. Blige
“Mystery of Love” from “Call Me by Your Name,” Sufjan Stevens
“Remember Me” from “Coco,” Kristen Anderson-Lopez, Robert Lopez
“Stand Up for Something” from “Marshall,” Diane Warren, Common
“This Is Me” from “The Greatest Showman,” Benj Pasek, Justin Paul
Makeup and Hair:
“Darkest Hour”
“Victoria and Abdul”
“Wonder”
Costume Design:
“Beauty and the Beast”
“Darkest Hour
“Phantom Thread”
“The Shape of Water”
“Victoria and Abdul”
Visual Effects:
“Blade Runner 2049”
“Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
“Kong: Skull Island”
“Star Wars: The Last Jedi”
“War for the Planet of the Apes”
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Part of getting to a step 2 is establishing that the industry has a big problem, highlighting a Hollywood award show is an immense opportunity to do this since it's where everyone in the industry (actors, directors, screenwriters, make up artists etc) revolve around. These people will start to care when award shows bring this up rather than just flatter their egos.
The bigwigs will have to shamed into doing something, and before that happens requires pressure for them to acknowledge it first. The industry shouldn't to wait for them to die off.
*Best Picture*
For sound noms and editing for sure
It was a damn good screenplay.
And if BR2049 doesn't win the Cinematography and/or Production Design statue, there is no G/god.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
The Last Jedi getting nominated in the sound categories is kind of ironic.
WW was a fantastic movie, if they had "best patriqrchy smashing" I'd give it the nom, but otherwise it doesn't fit any of the traditional molds for Oscar films.
I don't mind because the Oscars are pretty dumb anyways. WW can sit on its pile of money made worldwide and smirk.
Blade Runner 2049 should be nominated for Best Director, Best Cinematography and Best Picture.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
They have to pass the gauntlet first, and those slots fill up quick if acclaimed directors like Spielberg are producing material. Not to mention any films whose production companies don't grease the wheels enough will get left out regardless.
Don’t know if I’d go as far as “fantastic”, but usually “well-reviewed plus piles of cash plus cultural impact” leads to something...even if it’s just sound, costuming, special effects, etc...but I couldn’t really argue it deserves to be there more than any of the actual nominees.
And Academy-Award winning Suicide Squad still stands alone in the DCEU...
That's a problem with the people voting, not the process.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
In fact there were probably a whole slew of movies that should have been picked over fucking Boss Baby.
It's both the people voting*, and the process.
* which has a whole lot of issues in itself, where it should be reformed. One example is supposedly all they need to do is get x amount of members in a screening to show disapproval while watching a movie and it'll shut down then and there rather then watching it all the way through