The Oscars are Sexist.
Only five women have ever been nominated for Best Director at the Academy Awards in their 92 year history. No one has been nominated more than once, and these have all been white women. Most years, when the nominees come out with yet again only men, this is not the fault of the Academy, but is unfortunately indicative of a larger problem with Hollywood not hiring female directors.
But in 2019, some of the best movies made were directed by women. Of the ones I've seen, Little Women and The Farewell are two definite favorites, as well as Booksmart. And that's not including a multitude of films that I have yet to see but haven't heard anything bad about including Hustlers, Honey Boy, Queen & Slim, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, Clemency, and Portrait of a Lady on Fire. And yet, when the nominations were announced, they were all men.
This happened for a few reasons. I do not believe that the majority of the Academy voted with the belief that they simply can't nominate a woman because they hate women, the hate is more deep-rooted than simply not wanting to respect a woman because she is a woman.
The first reason is the hypothesis that a movie can't be good if it is joyful. That it is irresponsible to portray the people as nice and generous if that's not what you see when you look out the window. As if the theater is a place that we are supposed to relieve our frustration and view the dark and grim reality rather than to escape. Critics and award show tend to vote for dark and gritty movies because they are considered to be good simply because they are dark and gritty, whereas movies that are kind and generous and value the quiet moment and subtlety often go ignored. And this is an extreme generalization, the latter films tend to be made by women. In the Best Director category this year, the slots of Scorsese, Tarantino, Mendes, and Bong were basically secured, so there was one slot open for the competition of Gerwig, Baumbach, Waititi, and Phillips. Greta Gerwig created a movie so wonderfully kind; the characters have problems, but they are all good people. Everything about it works together to create a lush portrait that leads with the heart. Phillips created the antithesis to that. He made a knockoff of old Scorsese that attempts to push kindness by presenting the alternative. Joker does not have the courage to be what it could be because of a desire to be edgy. Todd Phillips being nominated over Greta Gerwig demonstrates the warped vision Academy voters have that a movie must be dark and "realistic" in order to be good.
Another thing is that, had Greta Gerwig been nominated, she would've been the first woman to be nominated more than once. And that is a statement, so when deciding the nominations, the Academy is not only faced with the question of whether she was deserving of a nomination in competition with all the movies released this year, but also what has stopped them from nominating a woman more than once before. Thus, she must compete with all other movies directed by women, and that's not fair. She is held to a different standard because she is a woman, and that is not fair. But nominating Tarantino for a dull compilation of his favorite things is not a statement, because no one will even bat an eye. Nominating Sam Mendes for achieving something simply for the ability to say that he could, not for the good of the movie, is all too expected. Nominating Martin Scorsese for a career Oscar just because its a chance to give one huzzah to his gangster era is a given. Nominating Phillips because you believe it will give you edge with the "popular movie" crowd the Oscars lost a long time ago is a cheap trick. It's not about talent, because I could list the ways Little Women is a directing masterpiece front and back on a parachute and still not have enough space.
This is also made all too obvious by the fact that Little Women is nominated for best picture. Like you can admit that you like the movie but you don't want to acknowledge its creator? You can nominate Florence Pugh for making Amy March a likable character without crediting the person who had the emotional intelligence to realize that could happen?
And because I am on an angry rant at this point: Rocketman was all too snubbed because of the above idea that movies that are happy and make the audience feel good are not 'realistic' and therefore don't belong in award contention. Apparently Taron Egerton does not deserve to be recognized because his performance was slightly cartoony, ignoring the fact that was exactly what it needed to be in the movie. Acting does not only need to fit your mold, and with that point moving onto Lupita Nyong'o's performance in Us, and the fact that that was completely ignored. Awkwafina in The Farewell, who manages to balance tragedy with staccato sparks of hope and joy, and makes her extremely specific situation feel universal (also the feat of director Lulu Wang, who deserved more attention). Because no, if the women don't cry and the men don't punch things in the exact right way, it's not allowed in. If the movie doesn't take you away from the experience of the story so you can realize what they are technically doing, then it's not valid. If a woman makes the directing look easy because everything serves the story so well, than it must have been too easy and she didn't try at all.
And in the category of cinematography, the only deserving one is 1917, but even that was just because of one scene, and even in that scene I was taken away from the experience of the film in order to think 'that's a good shot.' John Williams is a legend, and I've said multiple times that it is a crucial part of growing up to realize that John Williams composed every single iconic theme you can think of, but the Rise of Skywalker score was a jumbled mess of relying on old music cues to smash the 'Star Wars Theme' whenever someone good was onscreen and the Imperial March whenever someone bad showed up. And please, please point me to a world where girls in crochet tops or a closet of Hawaiian shirts is better costume design than Rocketman.
This is an unedited rant but it is my feelings so here you go.
But in 2019, some of the best movies made were directed by women. Of the ones I've seen, Little Women and The Farewell are two definite favorites, as well as Booksmart. And that's not including a multitude of films that I have yet to see but haven't heard anything bad about including Hustlers, Honey Boy, Queen & Slim, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, Clemency, and Portrait of a Lady on Fire. And yet, when the nominations were announced, they were all men.
This happened for a few reasons. I do not believe that the majority of the Academy voted with the belief that they simply can't nominate a woman because they hate women, the hate is more deep-rooted than simply not wanting to respect a woman because she is a woman.
The first reason is the hypothesis that a movie can't be good if it is joyful. That it is irresponsible to portray the people as nice and generous if that's not what you see when you look out the window. As if the theater is a place that we are supposed to relieve our frustration and view the dark and grim reality rather than to escape. Critics and award show tend to vote for dark and gritty movies because they are considered to be good simply because they are dark and gritty, whereas movies that are kind and generous and value the quiet moment and subtlety often go ignored. And this is an extreme generalization, the latter films tend to be made by women. In the Best Director category this year, the slots of Scorsese, Tarantino, Mendes, and Bong were basically secured, so there was one slot open for the competition of Gerwig, Baumbach, Waititi, and Phillips. Greta Gerwig created a movie so wonderfully kind; the characters have problems, but they are all good people. Everything about it works together to create a lush portrait that leads with the heart. Phillips created the antithesis to that. He made a knockoff of old Scorsese that attempts to push kindness by presenting the alternative. Joker does not have the courage to be what it could be because of a desire to be edgy. Todd Phillips being nominated over Greta Gerwig demonstrates the warped vision Academy voters have that a movie must be dark and "realistic" in order to be good.
Another thing is that, had Greta Gerwig been nominated, she would've been the first woman to be nominated more than once. And that is a statement, so when deciding the nominations, the Academy is not only faced with the question of whether she was deserving of a nomination in competition with all the movies released this year, but also what has stopped them from nominating a woman more than once before. Thus, she must compete with all other movies directed by women, and that's not fair. She is held to a different standard because she is a woman, and that is not fair. But nominating Tarantino for a dull compilation of his favorite things is not a statement, because no one will even bat an eye. Nominating Sam Mendes for achieving something simply for the ability to say that he could, not for the good of the movie, is all too expected. Nominating Martin Scorsese for a career Oscar just because its a chance to give one huzzah to his gangster era is a given. Nominating Phillips because you believe it will give you edge with the "popular movie" crowd the Oscars lost a long time ago is a cheap trick. It's not about talent, because I could list the ways Little Women is a directing masterpiece front and back on a parachute and still not have enough space.
This is also made all too obvious by the fact that Little Women is nominated for best picture. Like you can admit that you like the movie but you don't want to acknowledge its creator? You can nominate Florence Pugh for making Amy March a likable character without crediting the person who had the emotional intelligence to realize that could happen?
And because I am on an angry rant at this point: Rocketman was all too snubbed because of the above idea that movies that are happy and make the audience feel good are not 'realistic' and therefore don't belong in award contention. Apparently Taron Egerton does not deserve to be recognized because his performance was slightly cartoony, ignoring the fact that was exactly what it needed to be in the movie. Acting does not only need to fit your mold, and with that point moving onto Lupita Nyong'o's performance in Us, and the fact that that was completely ignored. Awkwafina in The Farewell, who manages to balance tragedy with staccato sparks of hope and joy, and makes her extremely specific situation feel universal (also the feat of director Lulu Wang, who deserved more attention). Because no, if the women don't cry and the men don't punch things in the exact right way, it's not allowed in. If the movie doesn't take you away from the experience of the story so you can realize what they are technically doing, then it's not valid. If a woman makes the directing look easy because everything serves the story so well, than it must have been too easy and she didn't try at all.
And in the category of cinematography, the only deserving one is 1917, but even that was just because of one scene, and even in that scene I was taken away from the experience of the film in order to think 'that's a good shot.' John Williams is a legend, and I've said multiple times that it is a crucial part of growing up to realize that John Williams composed every single iconic theme you can think of, but the Rise of Skywalker score was a jumbled mess of relying on old music cues to smash the 'Star Wars Theme' whenever someone good was onscreen and the Imperial March whenever someone bad showed up. And please, please point me to a world where girls in crochet tops or a closet of Hawaiian shirts is better costume design than Rocketman.
This is an unedited rant but it is my feelings so here you go.
Comments
Post a Comment