And the Oscar Should Have Gone to...

[Deleted]

I really don't think think "the Actors theory" is the case this time. Especially given the meaty actory roles in BBM. I think with all the reports from Nikki Finke, Anne, Thompson, NYT Oscarblogger...etc that it's fairly well known now that a lot of older male AMAPS voters refused to even see Brokeback. The average age in AMPAS is about 60, and the significant majority of members is male. Add a brilliant campaign by Lions Gate to paint Crash as the option for those who didn't want to vote for BBM yet they could still feel like they were doing the right thing(voting for a movie that fights racism) and you have a Crash win.

[ownlife]

I don't mean this in a hostile or challenging way, but how is it known that certain Academy voters refused to watch BBM? Why would anyone admit this? I don't know whether there is a rule that says "voters must watch all nominated movies in order to make a fair and informed choice" or how any such rule would be enforced by the Academy but I would think that the voters would assume that obligation on their own instead of voting for what appealed to them personally or ignoring what didn't. There's a difference anyway between watching a movie for entertainment purposes and watching it to determine who should get the Oscar, well, to me, there's a difference.

[Deleted]

I think that argument is bunk too. I think very few, if any, of the Academy members ever see all of the nominated films. I think probably just as many voters didn't see Brokeback Mountain this year as didn't see Sideways last year.

[anne]

The number of voters who dont' see all the nominated films has always been a reality. IMO, the academy creates that when they have as many members as they do, and make the number of categories and elgible films so large.

Does anyone know the differences between the nominating process and the voting process? Is it the same voting group for both? I've always wondered when people talk about a film not being seen by many voters how that film got nominated in the first place.

[slashgirl]

ownlife said:

I don't mean this in a hostile or challenging way, but how is it known that certain Academy voters refused to watch BBM?

According to Oscar expert Tom O'Neil, in an interview he did on CNN's "Showbiz Tonight" on Monday, he had spoken to several Academy members who knew other members who said that they not only wouldn't vote for BBM, they wouldn't even bother to see it. If that's true, then that's fucked up, to say the least. As far as I'm concerned, if Academy members won't see all the Best Picture nominees, then they shouldn't vote for Best Picture period.

[Deleted]

ownlife said:

I don't mean this in a hostile or challenging way, but how is it known that certain Academy voters refused to watch BBM?

Journalist Nikki Finke was the first to report that information was pouring into her about AMPAS members who refused to screen Brokeback because of its subject matter. This was over a month ago. Then Anne Thompson reported that she had been hearing first hand reprots of the same thing. Tom O'Neil also said that in his conversations with many AMPAS members, many of the older men said that they refused to even watch Brokeback. The New York Times Oscarblogger "Carpetbagger' also reported this. And finally, AMPAS voter Tony Curtis went on FOX news and declared that he refused to see Brokeback and that many of his fellow AMPAS members felt the same way.

[lpatrice]

That is why the Academy needs to change. If you haven't seen all of the nominated films, you shouldn't have a vote. I think that is why they frequently select films that leave the rest of us shaking our heads; because they haven't seen them all to compare.

Are we talking about Tony Curtis, as in Jamie Lee Curtis's dad, and the star of Some Like It Hot.

[anne]

I agree that you should see the films you're voting on - but how would the academy enforce that?

[Deleted]

Roger Ebert claimed the reports of AMPAS voters refusing to see BBM originated with Nikki Finke, and he said maybe it was true, but how is anyone supposed to verify anonymous, anecdotal evidence? And I agree with him because of my training: anecdotal evidence, most of the time, means shit. Which is why real researchers, journalists and scientists rarely, rarely ever use it, and only after building massive amounts of other evidence. Especially when you're trying to paint an entire organization of thousands of members as homophobes.

Tom O'Neill saying he "knew members who knew other members who said they wouldn't see it"? Yeah, I bet he also knew members who knew other members who totally woke up after a night of partying in a bathtub of ice with a kidney missing, and then when they went outside the hook was imbedded in the side of the car door, ohmigod.

So even though I thought Crash sucked, I still think the BBM supporters come across as sore losers, unwilling to admit that it's possible for other human beings to think BBM was not the best movie of the year and not be a raging homophobe. I didn't think BBM was bad, but I didn't think it was the best movie to come out this year (nor even the best of the best picture nominees). I thought the film looked lovely, had a good storyline and Jake Gyllenhaal did a good job, but that some of the other parts were miscast and it dragged along in a lot of places. Yet if you look at the reaction on some sites, you'd never know that that AMPAS gave BBM the most nominations of the year and, in the end, the most Oscars. Instead, some sites are acting like AMPAS dug up Matthew Shepard's body and displayed it on the Oscar stage for all to see.

[Oxynia]

I know that for documentary voting, they have screening sessions wherein voters must sit through all documentaries and then vote. They can do likewise for best pic nominations: screen them over consecutive weekends (vs. all in one day) and only those who saw all five get to vote.

It beats the DVD delivery/honour-viewing system, I think.