2023 Academy Awards Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Sep 12, 2007
35,528
52,492
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
The 94th Academy award nominations will be announced on Jan 24th US time and the awards are on March 12th.

Nominees for the majors below

BEST PICTURE
All Quiet on the Western Front
Avatar: The Way of Water
The Banshees of Inisherin
Elvis
Everything Everywhere All at Once
The Fabelmans
Tár
Top Gun: Maverick
Triangle of Sadness
Women Talking

BEST DIRECTOR
Martin McDonagh, “The Banshees of Inisherin”
Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert, “Everything Everywhere All at Once”
Steven Spielberg, “The Fabelmans”
Todd Field, “Tár”
Ruben Ostlund, “Triangle of Sadness”

BEST ACTRESS

Cate Blanchett, “Tár”
Ana de Armas, “Blonde”
Andrea Riseborough, “To Leslie”
Michelle Williams, “The Fabelmans”
Michelle Yeoh, “Everything Everywhere All at Once”

BEST ACTOR
Austin Butler, “Elvis”
Colin Farrell, “The Banshees of Inisherin”
Brendan Fraser, “The Whale”
Paul Mescal, “Aftersun”
Bill Nighy, “Living”

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Angela Bassett, “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever”
Hong Chau, “The Whale”
Kerry Condon, “The Banshees of Inisherin”
Jamie Lee Curtis, “Everything Everywhere All at Once”
Stephanie Hsu, “Everything Everywhere All at Once”

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Brendan Gleeson, “The Banshees of Inisherin”
Brian Tyree Henry, “Causeway”
Judd Hirsch, “The Fabelmans”
Barry Keoghan, “The Banshees of Inisherin”
Ke Huy Quan, “Everything Everywhere All at Once”

CINEMATOGRAPHY
“All Quiet on the Western Front”
“Bardo, False Chronicle of a Handful of Truths”
“Elvis”
“Empire of Light”
“Tár”

EDITING
“The Banshees of Inisherin”
“Elvis”
“Everything Everywhere All at Once”
“Tár”
“Top Gun: Maverick”

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
“All Quiet on the Western Front”
“Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery”
“Living”
“Top Gun: Maverick”
“Women Talking”

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
“The Banshees of Inisherin”
“Everything Everywhere All at Once”
“The Fabelmans”
“Tár”
“Triangle of Sadness”
 
Last edited:
Aug 21, 2016
15,619
24,590
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham
Think RRR wasn't even nominated by India to be their film...

Correct me if I'm wrong but India's failure to nom RRR in the Best International Feature Film category rendered it ineligible for Best Picture. This has previously led to “The Seven Samurai”, often chosen as the greatest 'foreign' language film of all time, not even being nominated for Best Foreign Film because Japan submitted “The Burmese Harp” instead. Not that I'm comparing those films. But it's all part of the quirks of the Oscars and why I don't take them particularly seriously.

The Academy Awards are pretty much a tribute to American made movies with the odd exception. You might find some good movies to watch in this list.

 
Yeah the Oscars are a lot like the AFL’s All Australian team - it’s the opinion of a bunch of people I often disagree with, deciding who is “the best” in a subjective form of entertainment.

I still find them novel though, for some reason; maybe if only to compare my own (correct) opinions.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Mar 19, 2016
1,487
5,289
AFL Club
Richmond
Correct me if I'm wrong but India's failure to nom RRR in the Best International Feature Film category rendered it ineligible for Best Picture. This has previously led to “The Seven Samurai”, often chosen as the greatest 'foreign' language film of all time, not even being nominated for Best Foreign Film because Japan submitted “The Burmese Harp” instead. Not that I'm comparing those films. But it's all part of the quirks of the Oscars and why I don't take them particularly seriously.

The Academy Awards are pretty much a tribute to American made movies with the odd exception. You might find some good movies to watch in this list.


You are wrong. Not being nominated by its country for best foreign-language film doesn't disqualify it from being nominated for best picture.
 
Apr 28, 2008
11,211
8,194
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Arsenal Kilmarnock
I think the main issue for me is the sheer proliferating amount of precursors that often feel more like groupthink predictors more than anything else. A couple have their own distinct legacies like Globes (which Critics' Choice tried to usurp in the last year or so of controversy), BAFTAs, the guilds, LAFCA, NYFCC, AFI, NBR, Indie Spirits, etc. but a lot of them are just really niche and regional and split with online critics and in terms of results a bit samey and pointless. The land of too many award shows, talk shows, etc.
 
Top Gun: Maverick will not win Best Picture. And deservedly so, because of the nominess I saw in the list, they were better filmed, better acted and/or better directed than TG:M. EEAAO as an example is quite an experience, if it wins the Oscar I won't be unhappy.

But goddamn if I did not have fun watching a sequel to an actually fairly average 80s movie and become completely enthralled from the opening scene to the end even if the story is cliched, the political undertones problematic and Tom Cruise being a crazy mofo off-screen. It will be the one Oscar nominee from 2023 that I will be very happy to rewatch if it pops up on TV or when it's released streaming. Sometimes you just want a movie where you can turn most of your brain off and pump your fist at various scenes, and TG:M delivers better than most if not all action films on the past decade or so.
 
Apr 28, 2008
11,211
8,194
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Arsenal Kilmarnock
I'm still more in love with TG1 (it's my third fave Cruise picture after Eyes Wide Shut and Legend). But for a 2022 sequel to a long ago film it's indeed a knockout.
 
Sep 12, 2007
35,528
52,492
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #33
I think it really boils down to whether you think a nomination should only be for a film that can genuinely win or can be a recognition of a great piece of filmmaking.

Given the academy expanded to (up to) 10 nominees a few years ago I think it’s perfectly fine to have a few in there that we know won’t win. Personally I think Avatar is more offensive than Maverick but I’m also not offended by either.

If something like Women Talking wins personally I think that’s worse, has anyone seen that?
 
Aug 21, 2016
15,619
24,590
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham
You are wrong. Not being nominated by its country for best foreign-language film doesn't disqualify it from being nominated for best picture.

Fair enough. But perhaps it's a soft barrier. If a foreign movie doesn't get nominated for Best International then it would have a hard time nominating for Best Picture. I've not watched all the Best Picture nominations but I reckon RRR is a much better movie than Avatar 2, Fabelmans or Tar.
 
Mar 19, 2016
1,487
5,289
AFL Club
Richmond
Fair enough. But perhaps it's a soft barrier. If a foreign movie doesn't get nominated for Best International then it would have a hard time nominating for Best Picture. I've not watched all the Best Picture nominations but I reckon RRR is a much better movie than Avatar 2, Fabelmans or Tar.
RRR wasn't in contention for best foreign film because the Indian film board (or whatever its called) put up another film. (Countries are only permitted to nominate one film.) Why did they do this? Probably because of internal, ethnically-driven politics. Anyway, Last Film Show (the film India did submit) made the shortlist of 15, so it wasn't an egregious decision.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Aug 21, 2016
15,619
24,590
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham
I thought it went the other way, you can’t be nominated for best foreign picture if you’re nominated for best international. Hence Roma and Parasite.

Did you mean best picture? because those are the same thing. The award for best international feature film was known as best foreign language film prior to 2020.

As far as I can tell, the eligibility for best international feature film is that it has to be produced by non-US citizens, made outside the United States, and has to be in a language other than English. This has led to a couple of quirks over the years. Apocalypto, which was made in Mexico and the dialog was all in Mayan, didn't qualify. The 1983 Algerian dance film Le Bal was nominated despite completely lacking dialog. The Nigerian film Lionheart wasn't eligible because it's mostly in English, which is their official language because it acts as a bridge between the 500 languages spoken there. Some people were not happy!

 
Aug 21, 2016
15,619
24,590
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham
RRR wasn't in contention for best foreign film because the Indian film board (or whatever its called) put up another film. (Countries are only permitted to nominate one film.) Why did they do this? Probably because of internal, ethnically-driven politics. Anyway, Last Film Show (the film India did submit) made the shortlist of 15, so it wasn't an egregious decision.

I meant a movie not getting nominated by its country in the international category would struggle to be seriously considered for best picture.

I loved both RRR and Last Film Show but think RRR is a better movie. But I can understand why Last Film Show got the Indian nomination for international picture. It's movie about movies and industry judges love that stuff.
 
Sep 12, 2007
35,528
52,492
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #41
Did you mean best picture? because those are the same thing. The award for best international feature film was known as best foreign language film prior to 2020.

As far as I can tell, the eligibility for best international feature film is that it has to be produced by non-US citizens, made outside the United States, and has to be in a language other than English. This has led to a couple of quirks over the years. Apocalypto, which was made in Mexico and the dialog was all in Mayan, didn't qualify. The 1983 Algerian dance film Le Bal was nominated despite completely lacking dialog. The Nigerian film Lionheart wasn't eligible because it's mostly in English, which is their official language because it acts as a bridge between the 500 languages spoken there. Some people were not happy!


Nah everything in my post was wrong.

I meant I thought you couldn’t be nommed for both best international (or foreign) and best picture.

So I had a typo AND I was wrong.
 
Sep 12, 2007
35,528
52,492
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #43
Would Top Gun Maverick really be worthy of a best picture oscar?
It’s a lot more “worthy” than Shakespeare in love.

Everyone probably needs to chill with the reverence of the academy. It’s a great movie that isn’t a snowballs chance in hell of winning. It got nommed as recognition of what a fantastic all around achievement it was.
 
Aug 21, 2016
15,619
24,590
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham
So the academy is reviewing the procedures for nominations process because of…

Andrea Riseborough. Not Top Gun.

Blanchett is a shoo-in for best actress though I reckon Ana de Armas was just as good and Blonde is a better movie.

I'm curious about 'To Leslie' and Riseborough after all the A-lister fuss. I'll reserve judgment until I've seen it.
 
Sep 12, 2007
35,528
52,492
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #46
Blanchett is a shoo-in for best actress though I reckon Ana de Armas was just as good and Blonde is a better movie.

I'm curious about 'To Leslie' and Riseborough after all the A-lister fuss. I'll reserve judgment until I've seen it.
I think the issue with the Riseborough nom is that it takes away from another recognition (eg Viola Davis for the Woman King etc) and its pretty clear that Riseboroughs campaign was not based on the quality of her work (especially given no one has seen it) but for her connections and Hollywood friends.

Ultimately it really seems like the sort of thing that has happened forever but this version of it was laughable.
 
Sep 12, 2007
35,528
52,492
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #47
She could win just because the Academy voters might thinkk that it'd be a remarkable story if she did.
I suppose anyone COULD win but it would be a massive, massive upset.

Race in two between Yeoh and Blanchett and they dont cancel each other from a voting block POV. It remains pretty ugly for the Academy she was nommed though. I read somewhere that movie has grossed $40,000. At $10 a ticket that means 4,000 people have seen it. Not everything has to be a blockbuster but c'mon.

The upset i can see happening is Butler for best actor. The Big Picture Pod (which does ALOT of good Oscars work) noted that Fraser and Farrell are competing for the "its time" Vote and might cancel each other out, coupled with Academy voters LOVING a biopic and LOVING a physical transformation. I wouldnt hate it personally (and i havent seen Banshees or the Whale yet) but i think that would be a poor outcome.
 
Apr 28, 2008
11,211
8,194
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Arsenal Kilmarnock
I think the issue with the Riseborough nom is that it takes away from another recognition (eg Viola Davis for the Woman King etc) and its pretty clear that Riseboroughs campaign was not based on the quality of her work (especially given no one has seen it) but for her connections and Hollywood friends.

Ultimately it really seems like the sort of thing that has happened forever but this version of it was laughable.
I think a lot of publications are chucking a hissy right now though primarily because it hurts their ad revenue to have a nominee that essentially bypassed the FYC ads system of publicity campaigning (which makes it hard for small films like this to even get a look in). I understand the need to review the situation, and someone like Frances Fisher might've broken protocol through her conduct, but in general it was a nice show of fellow support. Obviously you could imagine the exact same troll situation with people coming out for Jared Leto in Morbius or something, but a lot of these people were putting their rep on the line and she has long been a standout character actress so it's no surprise they'd seek out a rare lead role from her and organise screenings if it was really good. I get the cynicism of the grassroots advocating, it seemed a bit suspect, but I think the winner here is the film and actress which will get more eyeballs regardless of how the Oscars decide to paint it. Reminds me a bit of those write-in nominees you used to see at some of these awards shows.
 
Sep 12, 2007
35,528
52,492
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #49
I think a lot of publications are chucking a hissy right now though primarily because it hurts their ad revenue to have a nominee that essentially bypassed the FYC ads system of publicity campaigning (which makes it hard for small films like this to even get a look in). I understand the need to review the situation, and someone like Frances Fisher might've broken protocol through her conduct, but in general it was a nice show of fellow support. Obviously you could imagine the exact same troll situation with people coming out for Jared Leto in Morbius or something, but a lot of these people were putting their rep on the line and she has long been a standout character actress so it's no surprise they'd seek out a rare lead role from her and organise screenings if it was really good. I get the cynicism of the grassroots advocating, it seemed a bit suspect, but I think the winner here is the film and actress which will get more eyeballs regardless of how the Oscars decide to paint it. Reminds me a bit of those write-in nominees you used to see at some of these awards shows.
Yeh thats a fair point too. Anything that gets us further away from the Weinstein style money buying Oscars isnt a bad thing but this feels like the other extreme and i also think given the work the Oscars has done to get more relevance in the mainstream the Riseborough nom only reinforces that this is a closed industry run by a small group and what we (the general movie going public think) doesnt matter, which wont help their ratings.
 
Apr 28, 2008
11,211
8,194
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Arsenal Kilmarnock
Yeh thats a fair point too. Anything that gets us further away from the Weinstein style money buying Oscars isnt a bad thing but this feels like the other extreme and i also think given the work the Oscars has done to get more relevance in the mainstream the Riseborough nom only reinforces that this is a closed industry run by a small group and what we (the general movie going public think) doesnt matter, which wont help their ratings.
That's a fair point too, but I'm one of those people who honestly doesn't give a crap about the ratings or what the general (American) public might think, it ideally wouldn't be about that, if it was a small untelevised event purely based on 'merit' that merely published their results I'd be fine with that. It might not be what drew us to the Oscars in the first place, but I'd always rather integrity over (an increasingly desperate) broader relevance, prefer to think of the Oscars as medium awards than people's choice or whatever. That separation does feel a bit more pronounced in this era just purely looking at traditional box office results, but the cinema landscape itself has changed and people are just watching quality dramas elsewhere, so the traditional barometers need to be updated to reflect what is cutting through.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back