The 2018 Oscars...a question and a thought or two
I'm a fan of Claudia Puig. She is a nationally-renowned film critic and the president of the Los Angeles Film Critics Association. She sent out a tweet summing up the Oscars:
That is what raised the question in my mind referenced in the title of this blog. Actually it raises several questions. First and foremost, what should the voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) have done differently in voting in the categories in which Gary Oldman and Kobe Bryant were nominated? Should they have chosen to vote for other nominees solely because of the accusations against those men? Should the process by which they were nominated be altered so that those accused of sexual assault/domestic violence are not eligible for consideration?
Gary Oldman was accused by his then-wife Donya Fiorentino of domestic violence. She claims that he choked her and hit her with a phone, in front of their children. A police investigation resulted in no charges being filed. A judge awarded sole custody of the children to Mr. Oldman. Does that mean the accusation is false? No. But it is a "he said/she said" and isn't any more comparable to what Harvey Weinstein is accused of than what Carmine Caridi did to get expelled from AMPAS.
Kobe Bryant has maintained all along that the sex he had with a 19 year old woman was consensual. Harvey Weinstein has been accused by so many women that the Oscars telecast had a sequence where three of the most prominent of his accusers came out on stage and talked about how "Time's Up!"
Do we forever exclude anyone accused by a single person of sexual assault/domestic violence from ever being given any award again? Perhaps. But then let's change the rules of the nominating process so it is clear who is and is not innocent enough to be considered for the recognition of their peers. Hold that phrase, "...recognition of their peers" in the back of your mind for a moment. I will circle back to it.
The bottom line in the entertainment industry is in fact all about the bottom line, financially. The dollar, yuan, yen, euro, and so on, is what really matters in the plush offices where the decision-makers decide what projects get produced.
Roman Polanski has been a fugitive from justice since 1978. In that time he's directed 13 films, one as recently as 2017. He is still a member in good standing of AMPAS as far as I know.
Victor Salva is a convicted child molester. Since being paroled in 1992 he's made nine films. In 2001, his Jeepers Creepers was #1 at the box office the weekend it opened.
I don't expect Salva to ever be considered for an Oscar, but Polanski won one while unable to attend the ceremony because he fled the U.S. That his victim says she has forgiven him doesn't change the fact he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. So it is okay for a convicted sex offender to win an Oscar and remain an Academy member, but people who are accused and not yet charged should be denied award consideration? I find this more than a bit confusing.
Kobe Bryant denied the rape allegation against him. Gary Oldman denied being guilty of domestic violence. Bill Clinton denied the rape allegation made against him by Juanita Broadrrick. Those who defend Bill Clinton make much out of the fact that it took a long time for Ms Broadrrick to come forward. Same thing can be said for almost all of the women accusing Harvey Weinstein. So why does Bill Clinton get a pass from so many of the people who are so strident in saying people like Kobe Bryant and Gary Oldman should be denied the recognition of their peers?
We can never engage in shaming victims, nor can we question why they waited to step forward and tell their stories. At the same time, do we immediately convict the accused in the court of public opinion and ostracize them permanently?
* * *
Speaking of the recognition of one's peers, something a Facebook friend wrote caught my eye and got me thinking about just what it means to win an Academy Award for Best Picture...in terms of which is really the "best." He wrote:
"
In some things, it is easier to quantify what is better than the rest, leading to a determination which is best. The condition of rare coins is measuring with a system where 0 is worst and 70 is best. The process is as scientific as possible, but yet one grader may see a coin as an MS-64 while another will evaluate it as an MS-65. Given the vast difference in price between those two grades in a coin, it's an important differentiation.
We rate movies on scales of 1-10 (IMDB) 1-5 stars (numerous sites) and 1-100 (Rotten Tomatoes). All of those ratings by critics are extremely subjective. On Rotten Tomatoes, The Shape of Water is rated 92% by the critics. Get Out is rated 99% by the critics.
The Academy Awards carry prestige, and mean big money at the box office. But as pointed out in a previous blog, the financial impact of a Golden Globe award is much larger than that of an Oscar. A statistical analysis showed that the box office value of an Oscar is "only" $3 million, while a Golden Globe's box office value is $14.2 million.
But in the end, they are the subjective judgment of less than 7,000 people, some of whom are no longer "active" in the movie industry.
We should each decide which film we think best, enjoy awards season as best as possible and not stress over such trivial things when we have a Moron-in-Chief endangering all of us.
#Oscars2018:2 steps forward, 3 steps back.McDormand urging inclusive action was fantastic, shout-out to DREAMers & Del Toro's speech—lovely.Jordan Peele being 1st African-American to win screenplay was huge.BUT Gary Oldman winning despite domestic abuse is troubling.And Kobe too.— Claudia Puig (@claudiapuig) March 5, 2018
That is what raised the question in my mind referenced in the title of this blog. Actually it raises several questions. First and foremost, what should the voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) have done differently in voting in the categories in which Gary Oldman and Kobe Bryant were nominated? Should they have chosen to vote for other nominees solely because of the accusations against those men? Should the process by which they were nominated be altered so that those accused of sexual assault/domestic violence are not eligible for consideration?
Gary Oldman was accused by his then-wife Donya Fiorentino of domestic violence. She claims that he choked her and hit her with a phone, in front of their children. A police investigation resulted in no charges being filed. A judge awarded sole custody of the children to Mr. Oldman. Does that mean the accusation is false? No. But it is a "he said/she said" and isn't any more comparable to what Harvey Weinstein is accused of than what Carmine Caridi did to get expelled from AMPAS.
Kobe Bryant has maintained all along that the sex he had with a 19 year old woman was consensual. Harvey Weinstein has been accused by so many women that the Oscars telecast had a sequence where three of the most prominent of his accusers came out on stage and talked about how "Time's Up!"
Do we forever exclude anyone accused by a single person of sexual assault/domestic violence from ever being given any award again? Perhaps. But then let's change the rules of the nominating process so it is clear who is and is not innocent enough to be considered for the recognition of their peers. Hold that phrase, "...recognition of their peers" in the back of your mind for a moment. I will circle back to it.
The bottom line in the entertainment industry is in fact all about the bottom line, financially. The dollar, yuan, yen, euro, and so on, is what really matters in the plush offices where the decision-makers decide what projects get produced.
Roman Polanski has been a fugitive from justice since 1978. In that time he's directed 13 films, one as recently as 2017. He is still a member in good standing of AMPAS as far as I know.
Victor Salva is a convicted child molester. Since being paroled in 1992 he's made nine films. In 2001, his Jeepers Creepers was #1 at the box office the weekend it opened.
I don't expect Salva to ever be considered for an Oscar, but Polanski won one while unable to attend the ceremony because he fled the U.S. That his victim says she has forgiven him doesn't change the fact he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. So it is okay for a convicted sex offender to win an Oscar and remain an Academy member, but people who are accused and not yet charged should be denied award consideration? I find this more than a bit confusing.
Kobe Bryant denied the rape allegation against him. Gary Oldman denied being guilty of domestic violence. Bill Clinton denied the rape allegation made against him by Juanita Broadrrick. Those who defend Bill Clinton make much out of the fact that it took a long time for Ms Broadrrick to come forward. Same thing can be said for almost all of the women accusing Harvey Weinstein. So why does Bill Clinton get a pass from so many of the people who are so strident in saying people like Kobe Bryant and Gary Oldman should be denied the recognition of their peers?
We can never engage in shaming victims, nor can we question why they waited to step forward and tell their stories. At the same time, do we immediately convict the accused in the court of public opinion and ostracize them permanently?
* * *
Speaking of the recognition of one's peers, something a Facebook friend wrote caught my eye and got me thinking about just what it means to win an Academy Award for Best Picture...in terms of which is really the "best." He wrote:
"
I didn’t see all the movies, but “Get Out” was definitely better than “Shape of Water”"
In an excellent analysis of the nominating process, The Wrap makes it clear that a film can secure a Best Picture nomination with only 549 votes from the more than 6,000 members of AMPAS, and only 301 votes in the next round of that nominating process.
Even if every member of the Academy who is eligible to vote actually votes, it is still just over 6,000 people who are decided which is the "best" picture.
In some things, it is easier to quantify what is better than the rest, leading to a determination which is best. The condition of rare coins is measuring with a system where 0 is worst and 70 is best. The process is as scientific as possible, but yet one grader may see a coin as an MS-64 while another will evaluate it as an MS-65. Given the vast difference in price between those two grades in a coin, it's an important differentiation.
We rate movies on scales of 1-10 (IMDB) 1-5 stars (numerous sites) and 1-100 (Rotten Tomatoes). All of those ratings by critics are extremely subjective. On Rotten Tomatoes, The Shape of Water is rated 92% by the critics. Get Out is rated 99% by the critics.
The Academy Awards carry prestige, and mean big money at the box office. But as pointed out in a previous blog, the financial impact of a Golden Globe award is much larger than that of an Oscar. A statistical analysis showed that the box office value of an Oscar is "only" $3 million, while a Golden Globe's box office value is $14.2 million.
But in the end, they are the subjective judgment of less than 7,000 people, some of whom are no longer "active" in the movie industry.
We should each decide which film we think best, enjoy awards season as best as possible and not stress over such trivial things when we have a Moron-in-Chief endangering all of us.
posted by me at 6:50 AM
<< Home