Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

I rewrote my response below because "Yes, sir?" is far too flippant for something I feel far too strongly about. I think you're wrong, but the reasons in which you're wrong are something that I just hadn't considered somebody would ever think, so in that case I appreciate your input because it was illuminating.

ITALIANO wrote:

flipp525 wrote: I also find Tee's June Squibb prediction interesting.

It IS interesting, and while I haven't seen Nebraska yet, I can see this point. We must also remember that old-ladies-out-of-nowhere don't win this award since 1990 (yes, I know, Brenda Fricker wasn't that old then, but she's this kind of actress). But it certainly could be a smart way of solving a difficult issue.

It would also fit within the category of aggressively-campaigned lead performance helping carry a supporting compatriot into the winner's circle -- as I'd argue Nick Nolte did for James Coburn in '98, and Ed Harris did for Marcia Gay Harden in 2000. The fact that Bruce Dern should be at least theoretically competing for best actor will compel most voters to see the film, and they might latch onto Squibb as a side effect.

Sabin wrote:

Italiano wrote
And by the way - a writer especially should HATE words like "cisgender", and use them only ironically. More words doesnt mean better words. And a truly good writer should be instinctively skeptical about neologisms.

…yes, sir?

Yes, Sabin. I'm quite sure of this, honestly.

Italiano wrote
And by the way - a writer especially should HATE words like "cisgender", and use them only ironically. More words doesnt mean better words. And a truly good writer should be instinctively skeptical about neologisms.

It's a great word and I will keep using it for reasons that have nothing to do with me being a writer and everything to do with what its existence says about gender, trans kid despair, and progress. But I appreciate your input.

flipp525 wrote:

ITALIANO wrote:And by the way - a writer especially should HATE words like "cisgender", and use them only ironically. More words doesnt mean better words. And a truly good writer should be instinctively skeptical about neologisms.

No offense, but that's just not true (well, except for the "more words doesn't mean better words." I like that). Again, academics have been using that word un-ironically for over twenty years. You might just be annoyed that a) you didn't know what the word meant and b) incorrectly identified it as an American thing. Saying things like, "A writer should do such-and-such" doesn't really help matters. I mean, have ever read Gertrude Stein or even Toni Morrison? They'd both laugh their asses off at something like that.

I'm not sure. Academics may use "cisgender" if they really need to, but in real life, and most importantly in a novel, I'd never use it, honestly. I find it terrible.

Maybe because I'm European, and as others have said quite old, and a conservative from this point of view - but really, I think that new words should evolve from life, from people, in a natural way, rather than created by "academics". That's how languages really "flow", this is what I like about words - when I can feel life behind them, an urgency, a need. But when they just sound like invented in a laboratory, no, sorry, that's not for me. And really, especially when it's about what should be our most spontaneous aspect... No, big, big mistake, really.

FilmFan720 wrote:
I think the closest comparison to Lawrence is actually Hilary Swank.

She was young, true, but not THIS young, and she hadn't won the year before - it may seem only slightly different but it makes a difference. Plus, in Swank's case - or even in Luise Rainer's case, probably - there wasn't this feeling that she would be up again and again in the following years. But they know that Lawrence is here to stay, so they will have many chances of honoring her again in the not-so-distant future.

ITALIANO wrote:And by the way - a writer especially should HATE words like "cisgender", and use them only ironically. More words doesnt mean better words. And a truly good writer should be instinctively skeptical about neologisms.

No offense, but that's just not true (well, except for the "more words doesn't mean better words." I like that). Again, academics have been using that word un-ironically for over twenty years. You might just be annoyed that a) you didn't know what the word meant and b) incorrectly identified it as an American thing. Saying things like, "A writer should do such-and-such" doesn't really help matters. I mean, have you ever read Gertrude Stein or even Toni Morrison? They'd both laugh their asses off at something like that.

ITALIANO wrote:We must also remember that old-ladies-out-of-nowhere don't win this award since 1990 (yes, I know, Brenda Fricker wasn't that old then, but she's this kind of actress). But it certainly could be a smart way of solving a difficult issue.

Exactly! In fact, I'm thinking we might be onto something.

flipp525 wrote: I also find Tee's June Squibb prediction interesting.

It IS interesting, and while I haven't seen Nebraska yet, I can see this point. We must also remember that old-ladies-out-of-nowhere don't win this award since 1990 (yes, I know, Brenda Fricker wasn't that old then, but she's this kind of actress). But it certainly could be a smart way of solving a difficult issue.

Mister Tee wrote:Remember how Daniel Day-Lewis looked like a winner going into 2002's show? SAG had chosen him, but of course SAG hadn't existed in 1989 when he'd won his earlier Oscar. Voters in the end shied away from giving him a second trophy for Gangs of New York (though they got over their reluctance subsequently). A similar reticence may apply here.

Was Day-Lewis' loss more that they didn't want to give him a second Oscar (he had been nominated once in between there), or was it that they didn't like Gangs of New York (which went 0/11) and really liked The Pianist (which took 3 unexpected major awards). Lawrence is in a movie that is really popular in this circle, which is a benefit that Day-Lewis didn't have.

I think the closest comparison to Lawrence is actually Hilary Swank. Granted, Lawrence is more of a big name movie star, but Swank won 2 Oscars in pretty close succession, at a young age, and the thing against her the second time was a question of whether the Academy was really going to give her a second trophy. At this point, I would argue that Lawrence's resume is more impressive than Swank's was in 2004, and you could also argue that Swank had a more uphill battle to fight (given that the Academy had the opportunity to award long considered overdue Annette Bening, or critics favorite Imelda Staunton for a movie they seemed to like a lot).

And by the way - a writer especially should HATE words like "cisgender", and use them only ironically. More words doesnt mean better words. And a truly good writer should be instinctively skeptical about neologisms.

Anyway, back to the Globes and upcoming nominations...I noticed that Reza had Will Forte down as a Best Supporting Actor nominee and I'm starting to think that's a real possibility, especially if (as someone has already said) there's a groundswell of support for Nebraksa. I also find Tee's June Squibb prediction interesting. This is a category that regularly used to honor old ladies (not the lead category, much to Big Magilla's chagrin). Someone like a June Squibb could easily benefit from the whole "Should I choose Jennifer or Lupita?" narrative going on right now. Caught between the two candidates, voters might simply go with another option. And Squibb is fucking hilarious in that film (I can only assume her Oscar clip will come from the graveyard scene).

Apropos of nothing, I thought that Lupita's red carpet performance on Sunday deserved an Oscar.

Sabin wrote: Ages ago, would the word "heterosexual" need to exist? .

Exactly my point. I don't think the word "heterosexual" should exist, really.

Italiano wrote
We do, but only when really needed. Unless of course you, Sabin, woke up every morning wondering: wait a moment, I am not a transexual I guess (let me check), so WHAT am I? What am I?
Now you know, Are you happier?

I view usage of the word "cisgender" as one color in an ever-increasing palette of possible diversity. Ages ago, would the word "heterosexual" need to exist? After all, how many people really wake up in the morning and ask themselves if they're still not heathens?

flipp525 wrote

Sabin wrote
We don't need more words.

Wow. And you're a writer?

I try. Also, I was being sarcastic. Just as I was in the post above by referring to homosexuals as heathens for purposes of a point. My stance is now and forever: more words. I love the word "cisgender".

Greg wrote:

ITALIANO wrote:

Sabin wrote: The three old people are right. . .

We do. . .

You're old? I thought you were younger-middle-aged, or temporarily-not-aged.

I dont know. I am 44, so, I guess, old by American standards. But in Italy I'm still considered relatively young, and I'm even younger in, say, Lebanon.

But here I am old, and I kind of like it - after all, it's about knowledge and experience, not about looks or sex

Sabin wrote:We don't need more words.

Wow. And you're a writer?