95th Oscars: Some Deserved Better

Tools    





I feel called out.

So if you want to fight me, meet me by the monument after school. I'll be the one in the maroon letter jacket.
That being said. My comparison stands. They are both critical and popular successes that won a lot of Oscars. I didn't impugn the integrity of your favorite. I love Gone with the Wind. I love Vivian Leigh. I clapped like a maniac when Scarlett raises her fist in the air and says, "as God is my witness, I will never go hungry again." I hate Lesley Howard for messing with Scarlett's emotions. But it has become problematic as mores have changed and my vision has changed. I have not seen Everything, Everywhere All at Once so I can't comment on that movie as such which I didn't. So chill.
So how could you compare the films if you haven't seen Everything Everywhere All at Once? Just because they both won multiple Oscars?



I caught a radio interview last night with the wife of Paul Sorvino.
His family is claiming the academy intentionally left him out of the in memoriam segment because he was conservative and the academy has gone "woke" so as to delete any deceased stars out of spiteful cancel-culture.

I didn't see it so I don't know, but could this be so?

And did they provide any evidence that this was anything more than the delusions of some conservative victimhood? If not, why are we even entertaining this? Isn't it more likely the omission has to do with the fact that most people suck at their jobs and the person in charge probably overlooked a few people....as they do every year.



There are usually a few conspicuous absents in the Oscar Obits. Intentional snubs? You be the judge.
What are people's feelings about this?

Personally, I think after a person dies they should be remembered for the good things they did, and for celebrities that means the movies they helped make or the entertainment they provided no matter what may have gone on in their personal lives.

The idea of snubbing someone for their political beliefs is outrageous (if that indeed happened).

Someone would have to have been convicted of doing something really awful for me to feel they must be omitted completely from a memorial after they've died.



And did they provide any evidence that this was anything more than the delusions of some conservative victimhood? If not, why are we even entertaining this? Isn't it more likely the omission has to do with the fact that most people suck at their jobs and the person in charge probably overlooked a few people....as they do every year.
The interviewer (Frank Morano) did ask these questions, but Mrs. Sorvino said no one reached out to address why her husband was omitted or apologize for an oversight. However, someone did inform her that Paul was included in a longer version of the memoriam which did not air during the Oscars - but this only seemed to confirm the idea of an intentional snub to Paul's family. (???)



What are people's feelings about this?

Personally, I think after a person dies they should be remembered for the good things they did, and for celebrities that means the movies they helped make or the entertainment they provided no matter what may have gone on in their personal lives.

The idea of snubbing someone for their political beliefs is outrageous (if that indeed happened).

Someone would have to have been convicted of doing something really awful for me to feel they must be omitted completely from a memorial after they've died.
I'm not sure how they decide who to include or exclude. I suspect it was due to time limits that they couldn't include everyone, but it sucks for the family of the people who didn't get included. I agree that celebrities should not be excluded from the memorial because of politics or their personal life.



So how could you compare the films if you haven't seen Everything Everywhere All at Once? Just because they both won multiple Oscars?
The OP basically said EEAAO won so many awards. How can this be?

And I said Well EEAAO was a huge critical and popular success, Movies that are big success often win a lot of Oscars for example; GWTW.
Then you said, How dare you?
And I said, well I'm saying they are both big successes. I'm not comparing them in any other way as I have not seen EEAAO.
And CR said, Gideon isn't being a ____.
And you said, how dare you, yet again.
And after that I drew my own conclusions. I will let you imagine what they are.



Welcome to the human race...
I think this movie is very important to our society, because it highlights real human issues like loneliness, loss of friendships in adulthood, mental health, and purpose of life, but it seems like those aspects weren't appreciated much.
I mean, if you're going to take that tack with it, then Everything Everywhere All At Once highlights real human issues like generational trauma, the immigrant experience, poverty, homophobia, and suicidal ideation. That it does so in the form of a genre-bending sci-fi comedy instead of a mundane drama like Banshees doesn't necessarily minimise the fact that it is fundamentally about these things. If anything, I think you can pick apart what each of these Best Picture nominees are about fairly easily (even something like Top Gun: Maverick deals in matters of legacy and regret underneath its airborne spectacle).
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



What are people's feelings about this?
If it was intentional, I'm not surprised. If it wasn't intentional, I'm not surprised.

The disdain for said demographic is quite current, and typical, and increasing, is probably the best presumptive evidence that it might not be a mistake, or rather an "accidentally on purpose" or "a mistake that no one was in a rush to correct."

It is difficult to prove a negative conclusively, but that does not mean that even asking the question is fantastical (i.e., why are we even entertaining this?). When similar speculation about lack of POC nominations turned into a campaign (#OscarsSoWhite), the question was not dismissed out of hand, but rather applied pressure to the academy. The question doesn't particularly interest me, but that does not mean that the question is somehow out of turn. If it is, it is because is edging towards forum rules against discussing politics in general. We all know how these things go. "It's a conspiracy theory. It's not happening." "It is happening, but its not happening that much (e.g., "it's just a few kids on college campuses"). "It is happening, but what about our enemies who are also doing it? Hypocrisy, I say!" "It happened (and here's why that's a good thing!)." Why would you expect an exemption or pass here?

Personally, I think after a person dies they should be remembered for the good things they did, and for celebrities that means the movies they helped make or the entertainment they provided no matter what may have gone on in their personal lives.
What can I say? Fatty Arbuckle got screwed too.

The idea of snubbing someone for their political beliefs is outrageous (if that indeed happened).
The gathered academy booed Michael Moore for opposing the Iraq war, just before they made a bunch of movies and public statements sticking it to bad old George Bush. Why are we pretending that the Academy is a moral barometer?



What can I say? Fatty Arbuckle got screwed too.

The gathered academy booed Michael Moore for opposing the Iraq war, just before they made a bunch of movies and public statements sticking it to bad old George Bush. Why are we pretending that the Academy is a moral barometer?
Since I was listening to a radio show, it turned into a conversation as people started to call in and of course the question was posed... "Will OJ be included when he dies for Capricorn One and the Naked Gun movies?"

That's a tough one since he was found not guilty in criminal court, but found guilty in civil court.



Registered User
I caught a radio interview last night with the wife of Paul Sorvino.
His family is claiming the academy intentionally left him out of the in memoriam segment because he was conservative and the academy has gone "woke" so as to delete any deceased stars out of spiteful cancel-culture.

I didn't see it so I don't know, but could this be so?
I believe that it could be. I didn't know this about Paul Sorvino. I assume other people in the in memoriam section could have been conservatives, too, but the thing is, they probably never let that be known. I happen to know that Kirstie Alley was also an outspoken Republican, so maybe it was something else? Still no excuse, though!



Since I was listening to a radio show, it turned into a conversation as people started to call in and of course the question was posed... "Will OJ be included when he dies for Capricorn One and the Naked Gun movies?"

That's a tough one since he was found not guilty in criminal court, but found guilty in civil court.
I doubt he will be honored. He was a football player first and foremost. He's not well-loved in any community now. I don't think many will care when he dies.

Should he be honored? I don't know. Myself, I'm not into scratching names off pyramids or having sensitivity reader re-write Roald Dahl or blowing up statues of Buddha for being idolatrous. Noting his passing wouldn't be like giving him some sort of pass, would it? I don't have a problem with noting that he died at the Oscars.



Society ennobler, last seen in Medici's Florence
I caught a radio interview last night with the wife of Paul Sorvino.
His family is claiming the academy intentionally left him out of the in memoriam segment because he was conservative and the academy has gone "woke" so as to delete any deceased stars out of spiteful cancel-culture.

I didn't see it so I don't know, but could this be so?
Quite possible, the regime got very hard these days though the rulers are kind of tricky you know, Sauron makes it complicated. A level above his peppery influencer Lenin.
Anyway, James Caan was there... thanks God.
__________________
"Population don't imitate art, population imitate bad television." W.A.
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." M.T.



The key to inner peace is not thinking of the Oscars (or other people in general, for that matter) as validation of anything.
This is so true.

The best films of the year aren't normally nominated at the Oscars. The oscar nominations are mostly paid for campaigns / bribes. Once I realised that it was plain sailing.



I forgot the opening line.
I might be echoing what a lot of people have said, and in an inferior way at that, but I just see the Oscars as another film competition where certain films can win prizes - it might be the biggest comp out there, but just because a film wins Best Picture doesn't mean we have to regard it as the best film of the year - it just means it won a prize. Does the best candidate always win an election? When people vote on a particular course of action, does the winning one mean it's really the best? No, it just means that it won. The Oscars are so big that people tend to think that the winners of each categories have been officially stamped as being the best. But in reality they just won prizes - in other film competitions there were different winners. Like Yoda said - the real arbiter of what's best is usually time, which sorts things like that out perfectly. We keep talking about the most remarkable for the most time.

Perhaps there ought to be some kind of awards ceremony that has a 50 year delay on it - so that this year we'd be waiting to see what we consider the best in film for the year 1973. The Exorcist? The Long Goodbye? It probably wouldn't be the Best Picture winner for that year, The Sting.
__________________
Remember - everything has an ending except hope, and sausages - they have two.
We miss you Takoma

Latest Review : Le Circle Rouge (1970)



mattiasflgrtll6's Avatar
The truth is in here
You're right with everything you said, but I understand feeling disappointed when there's a category you're really rooting for something or someone to win (I was shocked to see nothing for Triangle Of Sadness whatsoever) or the movie that ends up being considered the best by the Academy is something you weren't nearly as into. I watched a different Best Picture winner not too long ago (Chariots of Fire) and I don't really get why it won. It's not a bad movie by any means, it's got good acting and characters you can root for, but narratively it's not that emotionally satisfying and the ending just kinda felt like "All right, let's call it quits and roll the fact texts". There are definitely movies I would have preferred to see in its place, which reconfirmed for me the Oscars shouldn't be taken too seriously as a form of quality measurement.



There are usually a few conspicuous absents in the Oscar Obits. Intentional snubs? You be the judge.

This was cringe, though.

I think what Kimmel said about Robert Blake was completely inappropriate. I also have to admit that I forgot that Paul Sorvino had been left out of the in memorium segment.




The idea of snubbing someone for their political beliefs is outrageous (if that indeed happened).

.
It's not just political but Heche, Sorvino, Sizemore, and Charlbi is shady as hell.

Charlibi thing is likely the grossest thing in an Awards time of grossness. The lead in Triangle of Sadness a film nominated for best picture. Yet articles have been obsessed with noting Deadwyler and Davis' "snubs" and we even had a tribute to Chadwick Boseman...again. But Kriek doesn't even make the in memoriam package.

For those who don't know she died of a mysterious illness and because her illness is mysterious and vaccines have become politicized the gutless people in Hollywood have basically blacklisted and buried this woman's spectacular performance.

They could have taken a minute to pay tribute to this woman who was once again the star of a BP film but in it's place we got an add for The Little Mermaid.