Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

The Original BJ wrote:The argument -- and I want to be clear that I personally think this is a pretty complicated issue, in which issues of representation have to be weighed against the economic realities of the film/tv industry, and progress often has to occur in baby steps -- is that casting cis men as trans women (and emphasizing and rewarding their transformations) contributes to the idea that trans women are simply men in drag. In the view of many in the trans community, that's not really any different than black face.

Laverne Cox ("Orange is the New Black") would seem to be the exception to the rule here as far as an actual transgendered woman playing that role on-screen (and that's the small screen).

Remember the utter uproar on the UUADB when I nominated Candy Darling for Best Supporting Actress for her cameo in Klute in our little 'Best by the Best' game here some years back? I'll have to dig that one out if I can find it, because I was taking it from literally all sides defending that choice (as well as nominating her in the appropriate distaff category - another thing people took major issue with at the time). The reactions were completely over-the-top like I'd nominated Hitler for Best Supporting Actor for Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will or something.

Okri wrote:Is the debate one of representation or opportunity, because the I understand the latter but the former is really really tenuous.

It's both. The argument -- and I want to be clear that I personally think this is a pretty complicated issue, in which issues of representation have to be weighed against the economic realities of the film/tv industry, and progress often has to occur in baby steps -- is that casting cis men as trans women (and emphasizing and rewarding their transformations) contributes to the idea that trans women are simply men in drag. In the view of many in the trans community, that's not really any different than black face. (Again, not saying I'm in agreement with this.) And the community also objects because trans actors aren't ever considered for cis roles, so the fact that they can't even land major trans roles essentially boxes them out of acting opportunities entirely. (Sort of the way the deaf community objects to hearing actors playing deaf roles.) There's also, in general, a real irritation with the way many cisgender actors and filmmakers have, in general, displayed a real cluelessness when discussing trans issues in the press (i.e. "here's why you can't be offended by my depiction of your community.") (Transparent creator Jill Soloway has been a notable exception in terms of reaching out to the trans community for feedback and in hiring practices.)

I have a good friend who is a transgender actress, so I've gotten plenty of earfuls about this stuff A LOT (and I admit it was something I was completely clueless about until I met her.)

The Original BJ wrote:

Greg wrote:

The Original BJ wrote:That community has pretty much reached the tipping point in tolerating cisgender men playing trans women (and winning awards for their transformations), and Redmayne has already come under early fire for his deemed-clueless comments to the press (and the fact that apparently the trans consultants on the movie weren't even paid).

What were the comments?

I can't find the exact comments, but I think it had something to do with referring to the character by dead name, referring to the character as a man, etc. Certainly Redmayne didn't mean any harm, but the response was essentially that those are still offensive ways to refer to trans people and the situation could have been prevented by casting an actual trans actress in the role.

Is the debate one of representation or opportunity, because the I understand the latter but the former is really really tenuous.

Greg wrote:

The Original BJ wrote:That community has pretty much reached the tipping point in tolerating cisgender men playing trans women (and winning awards for their transformations), and Redmayne has already come under early fire for his deemed-clueless comments to the press (and the fact that apparently the trans consultants on the movie weren't even paid).

What were the comments?

I can't find the exact comments, but I think it had something to do with referring to the character by dead name, referring to the character as a man, etc. Certainly Redmayne didn't mean any harm, but the response was essentially that those are still offensive ways to refer to trans people and the situation could have been prevented by casting an actual trans actress in the role.

The Original BJ wrote:That community has pretty much reached the tipping point in tolerating cisgender men playing trans women (and winning awards for their transformations), and Redmayne has already come under early fire for his deemed-clueless comments to the press (and the fact that apparently the trans consultants on the movie weren't even paid).

What were the comments?

It'll be interesting to see how the inevitable uproar from the transgender community will affect the narrative surrounding The Danish Girl -- and it WILL be inevitable. That community has pretty much reached the tipping point in tolerating cisgender men playing trans women (and winning awards for their transformations), and Redmayne has already come under early fire for his deemed-clueless comments to the press (and the fact that apparently the trans consultants on the movie weren't even paid). Not saying Redmayne (or the film) won't get nominations, but the community this movie is supposed to be representing won't at all support it, and they're fully primed to protest in a way they weren't with Jared Leto.

Some of these are in my hopefully soon to be published predictions as well.

Brooklyn is my sight unseen favorite from what I've read about it. Brooklyn's Saorise Ronan is my one to watch in the Best Actress category along with Mulligan ( Suffragette), Streep (Ricki and the Flash), Blanchett (Carol) and Lily Tomlin (Grandma) in the running. For Best Actor I like Ian McKellen (Mr. Holmes) over what looks to be a very strong field. My early pick for Supporting Actress is Julie Walters who plays Ronan's sharp-tongued landlady in Brooklyn. I'm also expecting great things from Helen Mirren as Hedda Hopper in Trumbo. On the opposite end of the age spectrum, I'm expecting Elizabeth Olsen to fulfill her early promise as Hank Williams' wife in I Saw the Light opposite Tom Hiddleston who could be a formidable Best Actor contender. Supporting Actor is still up in the air for me, although I have come up with five to watch in my predictions for the site.

I just turned in my first set of predictions to Wesley for the site, so I won't go into too much detail, but I think a lot of what you say is valid, flipp. Even if I didn't put a lot of them in mine.

At this point, do we just automatically place David O. Russell films into slots? At some point he has to falter, doesn't he?

It is ridiculous to say these things, but at this point, narratively at least, shouldn't Suffragette be seen as the major contender? With the story, and the cast (getting Carey Mulligan back in the race, the always-dependable-for-a-nomination Meryl Streep in support) it could rack up a lot of nominations. And after the Ava Duvernay experience last year, there could be a push for another female-directed film that the Academy can't ignore this time.

I put in multiple nominations for Snowden and Steve Jobs, although I am weary of both films (despite liking both filmmakers). Same with Bridge of Spies...this doesn't feel like "important" Spielberg, and I can see it going the way of Catch Me If You Can more than Munich or even War Horse.

I'm curious to hear about what the reviews for Sea of Trees are like at Cannes in the next few weeks. I see others predicting it full throttle, but I am weary of Gus Van Sant and the Oscars. When his films are conventional (but not too conventional) then he can pick up a lot of nominations, but his other films are completely persona non gratae. I can see this film going either way, so I want to hear what people think of it.

Okay, some more musings:

Eddie Redmayne will obviously be nominated for The Danish Girl. He's last year's Best Actor winner, the role hits the hot-button transsexual issue and, let's be honest, the Academy just loves it when straight people take on the roles of the LGBT. He will not win though. Had he not won this year, he would've been a strong contender, but he's not a back-to-back Oscar winner. If the film does well, there's no reason to believe he won't bring along his "long-suffering" wife (played by Alicia Vikander) like he did last year with Felicity Jones.

Cate Blanchett is already doing an "I've fucked women" bi-tour in the press so expect her to show up in Lead Actress for Carol which, with Todd Haynes at the helm, could compete for other top prizes as well (Picture, Director, Screenplay, Supporting Actress - Rooney Mara).

Do Julianne Moore and Ellen Page both make it in for the very Academy-friendly Freeheld, based on the Oscar-winning documentary short? One would probably need to apply the same Eddie Redmayne argument to Julianne's chances for winning, but a nomination seems well within reach. But are either Ellen Page or Rooney Mara really even "supporting" their supposed female leads? BJ, I think you should start steeling yourself now for some category-whoring in Best Supporting Actress for one or both of those performances.

A welcome back nod for Lily Tomlin (whose "Grace & Frankie" with Jane Fonda is already getting raves on Netflix) for Grandma seems possible. Could also be a makeup for her loss for Nashville all those years ago.

Could Dark Places (another Gillian Flynn affair) bring Charlize Theron her first nod in over a decade? Her character shares some features with her role in [I[Young Adult[/I] which really should've brought her back into the fold in 2011. Could Cristina Hendricks deliver in a strong key role for a post-Mad Men "welcome to the big time" style nomination? It will depend on the film. If you've read the book, I could see it happening.

Joy, another David O. Russell-Jennifer Lawrence-Bradley Cooper project about the inventor of the Miracle-Mop, will probably bring nominations for all three of them in addition to the film. That would make Cooper a four-time-in-a-row nominee which would provide a strong narrative for a win.

edited to add: I had no idea that there was a film adaptation of Emma Donoghue's Room coming out. Brie Larson should definitely be on any list of contenders with a part that powerful (especially after her universally-praised turn in Short Term 12).

Well, maybe not as ridiculous as making predictions the day after the latest ceremony.

I know no one else will agree with me, but I can really see the big "arisen from purgatory/oddball" Oscar nomination next year being Rick Springfield for Supporting Actor for Ricki and the Flash. In the spirit of Mikhail Baryshnikov's The Turning Point nod. Only if the movie is a hit, though. Springfield is also set to appear in the next season of "True Detective" and we all know how much that vaulted Matthew McConaughey to a nomination (and eventual win) for DBC.

And Meryl is serving up some Bonnie Raitt realness in the trailer.