BAFTA stuff.

For the films of 2020
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10055
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by Reza »

OscarGuy wrote:Because Tee is a rational, clear-thinking writer and he doesn't post one comment after another calling out diversity and acting condescendingly about it. Matter of fact, I think this is the first time I've ever seen Tee say anything of the like and he certainly put it in a cleaner, more cogent, and thoughtful way than you do, Reza. Tee doesn't feel the need to call attention to his opinion about diversity issues at every drop of the hat. In the span of two weeks, you've mentioned it at least three times that I've noticed and every time it's been little more than belittling, degrading, and dismissive.

Further, Tee isn't saying that we should ignore diversity issues because there isn't a problem and he doesn't then put forth every excuse possible why we shouldn't be more tolerant, open, and accepting. That's the way you act. You act as if any attempt at broadening the accessibility and openness of cinema for distinct voices as an affront to cinema itself rather than a re-alignment of it.

The difference is in approach. You exhibit behaviors exactly like the Ugly Americans you take offense at. You behave like you're a spurned straight white male insulted that his opinions aren't being treated as more important than every one else. You act as if any minority who gains all the rights and benefits you already possess is somehow being promoted above you and that you will now be treated like they have been treated for centuries.
Yes Mommy Dearest....I find you incredibly two-faced....yet hilarious at the same time. And I expected your predictable response above. Exactly all you wrote :P

I have absolutely nothing against diversity. I just find it hilarious and hypocritical the way these organizations are attempting to include it. At gun point, which is why we are seeing the mess being created over and over again. Don't get your knickers in a twist if I laugh each time it happens. The hypocricy of it all is galling.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by OscarGuy »

Because Tee is a rational, clear-thinking writer and he doesn't post one comment after another calling out diversity and acting condescendingly about it. Matter of fact, I think this is the first time I've ever seen Tee say anything of the like and he certainly put it in a cleaner, more cogent, and thoughtful way than you do, Reza. Tee doesn't feel the need to call attention to his opinion about diversity issues at every drop of the hat. In the span of two weeks, you've mentioned it at least three times that I've noticed and every time it's been little more than belittling, degrading, and dismissive.

Further, Tee isn't saying that we should ignore diversity issues because there isn't a problem and he doesn't then put forth every excuse possible why we shouldn't be more tolerant, open, and accepting. That's the way you act. You act as if any attempt at broadening the accessibility and openness of cinema for distinct voices as an affront to cinema itself rather than a re-alignment of it.

The difference is in approach. You exhibit behaviors exactly like the Ugly Americans you take offense at. You behave like you're a spurned straight white male insulted that his opinions aren't being treated as more important than every one else. You act as if any minority who gains all the rights and benefits you already possess is somehow being promoted above you and that you will now be treated like they have been treated for centuries.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10055
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by Reza »

Mister Tee wrote:But...I doubt a list like this will be repeated next year. I think it's clear the juries wildly overstepped their directive. Granted, it was a pretty vague instruction -- "We're a stodgy, overly-white group; give us a list that makes us seem less so" -- but I think implicit in this was "roughly within the normal parameters of our awards." This last part was obviously completely ignored, and the result is what you'd expect from a small, agenda-driven group -- a list meant to make a statement rather than to have anything to do with group consensus. If you're thinking, it was the group consensus that got us in trouble to start, I won't argue -- I think the whole project was in squaring-the-circle territory, and I'm not sure there was any coherent way to meet the goals of both reformers and the establishment. But what's happened here...I've been searching for the right analogy, and this is what I've come up with: You hire interior decorators to make your house a bit less drab; you come home and find they've lopped off your top floor, built two new wings, and painted half the remaining rooms in different day-glo colors. You no longer recognize your house
Thank you!!

Now I wonder why OscarGuy didn't call you racist!!
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10055
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by Reza »

HarryGoldfarb wrote:Not wading in here, except to say that I follow the Cesar Awards and Eurpoean Film Awards much more closely than I do the Critics Choice Awards. Just because they don't predict doesn't mean they aren't fascinating.
Can not agree with this more...[/quote]

Ditto
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19336
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by Big Magilla »

Okri wrote:I'm not sure I agree, Oscarguy, re groupthink. I get it when you get to huge organizations, but some of these critics groups barely have 30 members, and they're still rubber stamping presumed frontrunners. And why? Because they want to be predictive.
I don't think it's just because they want to be predictive.

The Producers' Guild picks, for example, are pretty much consensus choices that the Academy will agree with. Heck, I agree with most of them -strongly in six cases - Minari, Sound of Metal, Nomadland, Promising Young Woman, One Night in Miami, and Judas and the Black Messiah, less strongly because there really isn't much better to choose from in two cases - The Trial of the Chicago 7 and Ma Rainey's Black Bottom and OK, I give up in one case - Mank. The only one I totally disagree with is the Borat sequel. Right now I would replace it with The Mauritanian or The White Tiger, but then I haven't seen The Father yet.
Okri wrote:B) I genuinely love juried prizes. I'm a big fan of literary awards and all of them are basically jury prize.
I'm not sure you can compare literary prizes to mass entertainment prizes, but I have no problem with juries recommending films that they think should be seen. In a more perfect world, all BAFTA voters would have seen everything on the longlists and then voted for what they thought were the best. If, however, these more selecivet nominations get more people to seek out the nominated films, then that's a good thing. If they end up giving the award to Alfre Woodard for a film ignored by last year's Oscar voters, then that, too, will be a good thing. I suspect, though, that the currently more high profile Vanessa Kirby will be the beneficiary of all this. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out despite its irrelevance to the Oscar outcome.
HarryGoldfarb
Adjunct
Posts: 1071
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:50 pm
Location: Colombia
Contact:

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by HarryGoldfarb »

FilmFan720 wrote:
Sabin wrote:
OscarGuy wrote
Sabin, they are useless as a predictor and the extent to which anyone cared about the BAFTA nominations, it was for their predictive quality. No one pays much attention to the Donatellos, Cesars, or any other European Award. We only pay attention to BAFTA now because it's a precursor.
Yes, we only pay attention to the BAFTA because it's a predictor. But I'm saying I don't agree that there weren't insights to be gleaned from from their nominations as I outlined. They may not be the insights we're used to getting but they are still there. For example: Paul Raci is IN the race.
Not wading in here, except to say that I follow the Cesar Awards and Eurpoean Film Awards much more closely than I do the Critics Choice Awards. Just because they don't predict doesn't mean they aren't fascinating.
Can not agree with this more...
"If you place an object in a museum, does that make this object a piece of art?" - The Square (2017)
HarryGoldfarb
Adjunct
Posts: 1071
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:50 pm
Location: Colombia
Contact:

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by HarryGoldfarb »

His House is such a thrill that I am very happy for the attention it received, no matter if that doesn’t translate into Oscar recognition. It is available on Netflix.
"If you place an object in a museum, does that make this object a piece of art?" - The Square (2017)
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3351
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by Okri »

A) I'm not sure I agree, Oscarguy, re groupthink. I get it when you get to huge organizations, but some of these critics groups barely have 30 members, and they're still rubber stamping presumed frontrunners. And why? Because they want to be predictive. Part of the reason this season gets so boring is you have the same people giving the same speeches for the same films a half dozen times (I mean, I really liked JK Simmons and Whiplash but you've thunk he might have said something different at least once). Look at the response here.

B) I genuinely love juried prizes. I'm a big fan of literary awards and all of them are basically jury prize. I love longlists and think there should be more of them. Because, even if I take the premise that even in a smaller (~30 member) organization, the repetitive, broadly palatable will win out over the idiosyncratic, I'm gonna get the more idiosyncratic stuff at the sidelines anyway. So, it's cool to me that something like Calm with Horses (based on a short story I really liked) or Radha Blank can get recognized. In another world (aka, one with theatrical releases and everything), I can imagine Mads Mikkelsen getting an Oscar nomination for a Vinterburg film (no, really, I think it could've happened, a la Banderas or Denevue) and I'm glad an actor of his calibre made it here (he's also amazing in the movie). Alfre Woodard was better than every best actress nominee at AMPAS last year and I'm glad she got this recognition. I will actively seek out these films and/or carve out time to watch them in a way that I just wouldn't at the umpteenth mention of the same list we've already seen
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by OscarGuy »

Thanks, Tee. That's why I referenced the Spirit Awards. Their selections for nominations are often idiosyncratic then when the whole membership votes, everything goes in a broader direction. That's why I think the bigger the organization, the more broadly appealing the selections will be.

I don't completely agree with the notion that the Critics Choice Association pre-selects its winners. Sure, some vote for who they think will win the Oscars, but then many will vote however they feel rather than with any group think. With more than 400 voting members, it's almost impossible not to make broadly appealing choices on the whole.

I see it every year in tabulating the OFCS awards. We have a large number of members and while I see individuals making idiosyncratic choices, as the numbers increase, those periphery selections tend to vanish while the consensus selections merge into the final nominations. Then, with the winner selections, the same thing happens. It isn't a group think mentality. It's just that the more commonly palatable selection often wins out even if there are more esoteric selections in the lineup, should they have made it that far.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8648
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by Mister Tee »

Okay, a few on-reflection comments (my lazy ass had just got out of bed when I initially posted).

If you're looking at this set of nominations as we usually do, for guidance on what's going to happen in major categories next Monday -- Stop! They have virtually no connection to award season hype. They're anomalous. They were a gigantic experiment, and they yielded a result so far afield from the norm that it's silly to search for signs of anything, even around the edges.

Two things about this:

I'm fine with removing BAFTA from the numbing parade of predicting the Oscars. As far as I'm concerned, while SAG's arrival in the early 90s took some suspense away from AMPAS, it was BAFTA's late '00s joining the parade that truly drained the juice from acting races. I won't miss them.

But...I doubt a list like this will be repeated next year. I think it's clear the juries wildly overstepped their directive. Granted, it was a pretty vague instruction -- "We're a stodgy, overly-white group; give us a list that makes us seem less so" -- but I think implicit in this was "roughly within the normal parameters of our awards." This last part was obviously completely ignored, and the result is what you'd expect from a small, agenda-driven group -- a list meant to make a statement rather than to have anything to do with group consensus. If you're thinking, it was the group consensus that got us in trouble to start, I won't argue -- I think the whole project was in squaring-the-circle territory, and I'm not sure there was any coherent way to meet the goals of both reformers and the establishment. But what's happened here...I've been searching for the right analogy, and this is what I've come up with: You hire interior decorators to make your house a bit less drab; you come home and find they've lopped off your top floor, built two new wings, and painted half the remaining rooms in different day-glo colors. You no longer recognize your house.

And the joke of the whole thing? The usual BAFTA membership is going to vote the final outcomes. Does anyone expect they'll opt for any of the oddball candidates? It'll be like the Spirit Awards -- they'll laser in on the closest-to-Oscar nominees and vote them down the line.

As I say, I'm fine with this. But don't delude yourself this makes any difference down the line.
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2875
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by criddic3 »

Sabin wrote:
The thing I like about this year's Oscar race is literally I have less of an idea what is going to be nominated in many categories than any race since before I started coming to this board. Good. I'm old. I could use the surprises.
I think it's absolutely marvelous that BAFTA threw everyone off their predicting game. Year after year, the race boils down to a handful of films out of literally hundreds of possibilities. I always find that a little depressing even when I like a lot of the movies being put forth. I would have liked to see The Invisible Man get something here, though.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3794
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by dws1982 »

OscarGuy wrote:Let's say the committee has 100 or 500 members. There are 8,000 members in BAFTA. Even if only half of those are actors, you're talking about 2.5% or 1.25% of the whole. That's not representational...you cannot draw conclusions from a sampling that small.
You absolutely can draw conclusions and make inferences from sampling that small (and even smaller), and if the sampling is done well, those conclusions and inferences can be a very accurate reflection of the population as a whole! (I'm not making any conclusions about the BAFTA stuff, which I haven't even looked at.)
FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by FilmFan720 »

Sabin wrote:
OscarGuy wrote
Sabin, they are useless as a predictor and the extent to which anyone cared about the BAFTA nominations, it was for their predictive quality. No one pays much attention to the Donatellos, Cesars, or any other European Award. We only pay attention to BAFTA now because it's a precursor.
Yes, we only pay attention to the BAFTA because it's a predictor. But I'm saying I don't agree that there weren't insights to be gleaned from from their nominations as I outlined. They may not be the insights we're used to getting but they are still there. For example: Paul Raci is IN the race.
Not wading in here, except to say that I follow the Cesar Awards and Eurpoean Film Awards much more closely than I do the Critics Choice Awards. Just because they don't predict doesn't mean they aren't fascinating.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10757
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by Sabin »

OscarGuy wrote
Sabin, you seem like you're on the verge of understanding, but then never quite get there.

Let's say the committee has 100 or 500 members. There are 8,000 members in BAFTA. Even if only half of those are actors, you're talking about 2.5% or 1.25% of the whole. That's not representational...you cannot draw conclusions from a sampling that small.

If 500 people agree that Vanessa Kirby is one of the best, but the other 3,500 disagree and wouldn't have nominated her. She wouldn't have been nominated. You absolutely cannot and should not draw conclusions from such a small batch of voters. That's what we're telling you.
Got it. Well, at least I posted the nominees, OscarGuy.
"How's the despair?"
dreaMaker
Assistant
Posts: 596
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 1:41 pm

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by dreaMaker »

Exactly!
Big Magilla wrote: Diversity is a good thing, but jury selection that deliberately excludes really good work to make a point, isn't.
Locked

Return to “93rd Academy Awards”