Anonymous Oscar voter will be ‘embarrassed’ when ‘La La Land’ wins

Japan premiere of 'La La Land'

We’re still weeks away from The Hollywood Reporter’s annual Brutally Honest Oscar Ballot series, which is one of my favorite things to cover. THR tries to talk – anonymously – to various Oscar voters in various branches of the Academy (actors’ guild, producers’ guild, directors’ guild, etc) as they fill out their ballots. THR asks the voters why and how they’re making their choices and usually the stories are full of insidery Hollywood gossip and shade. THR’s series is the gold-standard of anonymous Oscar balloting, but other media outlets are trying to encroach on that space. The Daily Beast sat down with an anonymous voter who I think is from the acting branch, and they got him to talk about how he was going to vote (the ballots are still being sent out, I believe). You can read the full piece here, but here’s the scandalous or stupid stuff:

Whether he’ll vote for La La Land: “No, I’m not, and I can’t understand how it got 14 nominations. I just don’t get it. I thought it was a fine, good movie, but I won’t vote for it at all. My favorite was Hell or High Water. I thought it really captured America in a different way. I loved the acting, script, direction, and photography. I’m trying to figure it out [why people are crazy for it]. I think because it’s set in L.A. and it’s about the industry and they’re all narcissists. It got more nominations than The Godfather. How can they compare it? They’re mediocre singers and dancers, and there’s not one good song in the movie, as opposed to Singin’ in the Rain or other classic musicals. It’s a poor imitation. I’ll be embarrassed when it wins.”

Whether he’ll vote for Casey Affleck: “No. I’m probably gonna go for Viggo Mortensen for Captain Fantastic. Casey has a way of doing this internal thing which he loves to do, and he found the perfect part to do it. I was thinking about voting for him, but I think Viggo, although I wasn’t as crazy about the film, which I thought was overexaggerated. But I think he did a different kind of role and took a lot of chances. Between Casey’s and Viggo’s work, Viggo had so much more variety and he was braver. [But] I don’t think he has a chance to win.”

Emma Stone, Natalie Portman, Isabelle Huppert, Meryl Streep, or Ruth Negga? “I did not nominate any of them. I’m gonna have a hard time on this… I thought Emma Stone was fine, but I didn’t see anything that was a stretch. I didn’t like Jackie at all—I detested it, and I thought Natalie was fine, but I didn’t see anything great about it. I thought Ruth Negga played it one-note, and when I saw the documentary on that couple, the real woman was so much more animated and fun and you could see why he fell in love with her. But Ruth chose to play this downtrodden woman. As for Isabelle Huppert, I like that director [Paul Verhoeven]—he’s kind of brave, and I liked her in it, but I thought she played it on the same note. You get beat up, you get raped, and you’re still playing it the same way. There has to be some reaction to the brutality that’s happened to you. I didn’t see any change. I thought Florence Foster Jenkins was OK. Hugh Grant should have gotten the nomination, but I don’t want to see Meryl get anything for it. I want to open this up to other people. I’m tired of Meryl. I wish Annette Bening had gotten nominated [for 20th Century Women] instead of Meryl. [Voting-wise] Definitely not Meryl or Natalie or Ruth, and I don’t want to vote for Emma, though she was adorable. But I’ll probably wind up voting for Isabelle at this point. I have to think this over.

A good year for ‘black films’: “That’s exactly it. They blame the Academy for lack of diversity, but last year the films weren’t there. This year, the films were there. The nominations came because the films were so good. It has nothing to do with us. If they presented the product…

Whether he’ll vote for Viola Davis: “No! I absolutely adore her work—I think she’s terrific—but I’m not gonna vote for her because of a personal thing about studios putting lead actors in a supporting category. It pissed me off when that lovely girl won last year [Alicia Vikander for The Danish Girl]. She was clearly a lead. I would have voted for Viola for Best Actress. She would have been my number one choice. They put her in this category because they think it’s easier to win, and I’m not gonna vote for her in protest. It’s gonna be between Michelle Williams [Manchester By The Sea] and Naomie Harris [Moonlight] for me.

[From The Daily Beast]

I was prepared to like what this guy had to say when he started hating on La La Land, but the rest of his opinions are hot garbage. Like, I guess there’s only way for rape victims to behave? And he’s not going to vote for Viola because he doesn’t care for category fraud, even if it’s to vote for an actress who is absurdly overdue? As for the “black films” conversation, he’s total garbage there too. Sorry, Idris Elba, you just weren’t good enough. Neither were you, Ava DuVernay, Ryan Coogler and Michael B. Jordan. White people can be rewarded for being mediocre, but black people can only be rewarded if they do extraordinary work all the time. Anyway, now I’m worried that this dude reflects a big chunk of the Academy.

Japan premiere of 'La La Land'

Japan premiere of 'La La Land'

Photos courtesy of IMDB.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

106 Responses to “Anonymous Oscar voter will be ‘embarrassed’ when ‘La La Land’ wins”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. justsaying says:

    He’s so right about La La Land. I saw the movie, it’s nothing special.

    • Paula says:

      I saw it yesterday and I agree, though I really liked Ryan’s performance. Emma’s was fine, but nothing special either.

    • Geekychick says:

      My mom, who watches all the films ever, doesn’t understand why it’s so hypef.
      “Except between actors. That whole film is actually a love letter from actors and industry to themselves. Narcissism runs strong in HW.”

      • HookedOnCoffee says:

        This is exactly what I thought about LALA Land. HW saluting itself. It was an ok movie, but hardly the pillar of cinema you would think. People won’t talk about it in three years.

        It’s like Argo–I personally thought the movie was silly to mediocre. But it made HW look good.

      • Mar says:

        So funny that my mother basically said the same thing. She did not like the movie at all.

    • INeedANap says:

      The movie was pleasant and lovely. I would watch it again if it came on TBS on a lazy Sunday while I was folding laundry. It does not deserve Oscar noms, and Baby Goose and Quirky!Emma were fine but not spectacular.

    • Jayce says:

      I agree! I watched it again for 2nd time, because I had a few hours to kill before a special screening of 20th Century Women. It’s a fun film with some decent music and Emma and Ryan (extremely hot!!) are good in it, but it’s too gimmicky to be a modern classic.

      Now 20th Century Women is a different thing. I loved that film. Annette Benning gave an amazing performance and she deserves all the awards. The rest of the cast was great too.

      Viola’s nomination is definitely category fraud, but since the Academy had no problem with this for Alicia Vikander, I’m not gonna hate on Viola.

    • MorningCoffee says:

      I think people like it because it is different, and it is visually appealing. As for Viola, yes, it is category fraud and yes, she should have put herself in the lead category. I’m convinced she would have won! I do agree with him about Meryl. At this point, the only criteria for Meryl to be nominated is that she complete a film.

  2. Daisy says:

    I kinda agree with him re Viola. It is category fraud, we’re just ignoring it because it’s Viola. I also don’t like people getting Oscara for careers instead for one performance.
    I also don’t think he meant rape victims bave to behave a certain way.
    I actually agree with him on everything apart from the black movie issue.

    • Trixie says:

      Yeah, I didn’t take his comments about that character’s rape to be a generic comment on rape victims; I took it as a comment specifically about that one character in that one film. Unless the point of the film and that character’s arc is that she is not affected by being raped, then from a writing and acting viewpoint there should be some sort of change after a big traumatic incident to the character or else why write it.

    • Ramona says:

      Yes but in the past, category fraud has simply been about white mediocrity straining for attention. In Violas case, her studio took one look at who she could be on the ballot against and realised that those women are quite literally the academy voters wet dream. Basically pretty, young, white and considered cerebral. I’m talking about Emma Stone and Natalie Portman while Amy Adams and Emily Blunt were at the time thought to be contenders. And then blast from the past wet dream, Meryl Streep. Whatever principle you want to die on, its impractical and incredibly insulting to not acknowledge that Viola has a long history of being brushed aside for the Oscar wet dream and instead bash her for gaming a biased system.

      • Luca76 says:

        I mean I’m all for Viola winning but it’s clearly category fraud. It happens almost every year. Viola deserved to win for Doubt ages ago so I won’t complain.

      • OriginallyBlue says:

        That’s exactly how I feel. Viola can act circles around her peers, but she has been fighting for years to get to this point. This person may have been willing to vote for her, but would others? How disappointing would it be to lose to people who aren’t as good as you. Also it’s not that “diverse” movies only come out every few years, it’s because they have to fight for a release or to even be made. They have no problem whitewashing characters that are of colour, but heaven forbid you try and give a good/complex role to an AOC. They will take a one note white actor over a talented AOC 9 times out of 10.

    • Chaine says:

      I agree with him about Alicia last year. Once I finally saw the movie, I realized that the movie was not about the Eddie Redmayne character, it was about Alicia’s character. She was “the Danish Girl,” she had the lead role in the movie and in no way a “supporting” player.

    • pf says:

      But people have been getting Oscars for careers instead of one deserving performance since forever, like Paul Newman for example who’d been nominated like 7 times before winning for “The Color of Money,” one of his least memorable films. Or what about Jimmy Stewart not winning for “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” the Academy realizing they made a big mistake and giving him an Oscar the next year as compensation, although it should have totally gone to Henry Fonda for “Grapes of Wrath” – see what I mean? The Oscars have always been a political game, with people winning for the wrong performances etc. This is nothing new unfortunately.

      • Chinoiserie says:

        It doesn’t mean it should be allowed to continue. And its not like this guy is inconsistent. he did not like Alicia winning either. You shouldn’t have to change your principle because so actor is seen as overdue. Besides I think nominations are big deal already for someones career and the love bing remembered, Viola does not need to win, winning is made told big of a deal. But I have not seen Fences yet and don’t know how clear Viola’s care was, I have actually red people say she is not a lead.

    • Pandy says:

      Yes, I agree with his comments as well. I see what he’s getting at. And re Viola – she deserves a best actress, not best supporting. I’d be happy to wait for that win. But she’ll get that nomination one of these years anyway, so why not get both wins?

  3. Trixie says:

    No, I totally get why he thinks the way he does about category fraud and not voting for someone who commits category fraud in protest. The same thing happened with that Matt Damon Mars film at last year’s Golden Globes – putting it in Comedy when it’s clearly not a comedy. So while Viola may have been amazing in Fences, I can understand someone not wanting to vote for someone committing category fraud.

    BTW, I haven’t seen La La Land, but I keep seeing on here that people think there will be a “backlash” against the film and that it deserves some sort of “backlash”. I haven’t seen the film, so will someone explain why there should or will be backlash against La La Land, please?

    • Izzy says:

      It actually took me a while to figure out why they put The Martian in Comedy, but when I went back and watched it again (and again and again, it got me through the election), I got it. There were a LOT of genuinely funny, laugh out loud moments, and the story is one of hope and perseverance wound through it. The comedy really helped make the movie what it is.

      • lightpurple says:

        I thought The Martian was hilarious. The entire Council of Elrond scene, including the stapler spaceship and “I’m Teddy, the director of NASA” kills me. And the Iron Man scene. And on and on and on.

      • Lady D says:

        I didn’t think I was going to like the Martian either, but it was funny beginning to end.

    • Jaqen says:

      The Martian was much funnier than a number of comedies I watched in 2015. A comedy is defined as a humourous, generally light in tone and normally contains a happy ending. The Martian had all of these things which is why I don’t understand the outrage over category fraud.

      The problem was that it was marketed as Castaway on Mars but anyone who has seen the film knows it’s very much a light-hearted comedy drama.

    • Margo S. says:

      The issue with la la land is that critics are acting like it’s THE GREATEST MUSICAL EVER MADE. They are giving it reviews like la la land is a classic like west side Story, or the sound of music. It. Is. Not. At. All. And it’s painfully obvious for anyone not on the WB payroll to see.

  4. nemera77 says:

    I don’t get the la la land love. Just like I never understood how The Artist won. And now these years later no one is ever talking about the move. I agree with what he said. I don’t hear anyone singing any of the songs from La la land. There isn’t any of the music that sticks in your head. And your assessments regarding his thoughts on “Black Films” is spot on. So many great films by many people of color go unacknowledged and lesser movies get recognized. I’m just not that excited about this Awards season.

    • LolaBones says:

      Yeah.. My brother is a musician and film aficionado. He has watched all the movies nominated and the one he keeps watching over and over is La La Land. From the ones Ive seen is the most light hearted and likable, the rest are too heavy to give a repeat no matter how good. Both of us keep humming the songs too.
      Perhaps hes biased because hes a musician, jazz lover, and Ryan Gosling fanboy lol

      • JulP says:

        I’m a musician, jazz lover, and Gosling has been my internet boyfriend for years, and I hated La La Land! Different strokes for different folks ;) I will say that I would have enjoyed the songs more if they had cast better singers. I just couldn’t get into any of the songs featuring Emma and Ryan because their voices are so weak.

      • Geekychick says:

        My brother in law is a jazz musician with a academy under his belt, and he works in mainstream last 20years and he hated it.

  5. Nicole says:

    He’s right about LLL. It was fine but not 14 noms good. And his crap about the films not being there? Also BS. Esp since the Academy loves giving nods to crap films and actors. GTFOH

  6. Anthi says:

    I agree about La La Land and Meryl Streep and Portman (which I can’t stand) and Benning who should have been nominated but completely disagree about Huppert, there is no right or wrong way to play a rape victim, that’s bullshit, different people, different behaviors! I think Ruth Negga is awesome and what he says about black movies is complete bulshit!

    • Bridget says:

      He’s not saying that at all, at least I don’t think. It’s a specific commentary about the movie, because (spoiler alert) Huppert also ended up in a weird relationship with her rapist, and she played it the same when she was raped vs when she was being beaten up in their assignations. It’s not a straightforward story about sexual assault at all.

  7. Onika says:

    La La Land was utterly dreadful. Amy Adams was robbed and Arrival should win Best Film. Actor – definitely NOT Affleck, the douchebag. Would love Dev Patel to win BSA but who knows? La La Land is just embarrassing.

  8. GreenieWeenie says:

    “It has nothing to do with us.”

    Can I just say that I think this is the prevailing attitude of ALL white Americans toward racism and racial discrimination? There’s this myth that “these things [black exclusion] just happen.” Randomly. Without logic or order. Or even when racism is widely recognized, there is still next to no political will to do anything about it. White Americans are willing to do nothing about racism until it starts to affect them.

    As a case in point, this last election cycle. I understand you all are raging hard. I get it. And Trump’s starting an assault on rights that could very shortly lead to the erosion of yours, right? This is what annoys me to no end about the American psyche: it is SO egocentric. It’s only when something appears to threaten you, personally, or perhaps the ethos of individual rights as applies to you, that you all muster the political will to respond. Yet when the system actively threatens black Americans, especially young black men–when their civil and even human rights are publicly and indisputably trampled on in the most pernicious ways–you all lack the political will to do anything about it. It was a black American who said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”–not a white one. This is a problem of moral conscience.

    The anonymous Oscar voter illustrates the “it has nothing to do with me” rationale of white entrenchment (and there are a million parallels here in terms of how this attitude perpetuates systemic racism. Think about how Oscar noms determine what movies get made, whose stories are told and by whom…). But this is not the only rationale that perpetuates injustice. White complacency does too. I’m glad Trump got everyone off their @$$, but my God. He’s banned Muslims. This is terrible. Yet is it as terrible as a system in which police can murder black Americans without consequence? A system that uses white complacency to enforce segregation and actively oppress black Americans on every level (politically, economically, socially)? Idk. I know I’m lecturing now, but I think there’s a deep problem of moral conscience among white Americans.

    • Ramona says:

      This. I wish I could star this comment.

    • OriginallyBlue says:

      I want to print this out and had it out as a flyer.

    • Slowsnow says:

      You are absolutely right on all accounts IMO.

    • anniefannie says:

      @greenieweenie I really need you at my next holiday dinner table. I’ll tuck into my meal and let you destroy my closet, racist while feeling morally superior in-laws.
      I’ll owe you one…..

    • Wren33 says:

      Well, I think in this instance he was blaming the studios for not producing enough product for the Academy to judge. He wasn’t shrugging and saying it “just happened”. However, it is clearly a case of it being easier to blame someone else and not examining his own role. And as you mention, the studios produce what the Academy rewards, and the Academy seems to reward what the studios campaign for, instead of going out of their way to select things on their own merit.

    • Greenieweenie says:

      Glad you all see it too because I often feel totally isolated in my thoughts. I recently moved to Canada for a short time and I’m reminded of how much stronger the idea of a common social good (even at individual expense) is here. Americans pick and choose when they will defend against the compromise of their basic values–both abroad and at home. They’re admirable values for sure, but I just wish this country of self-interested individuals would live up to them at a fundamental level.

    • Rico Shew says:

      I appreciate your comments Greenweenie. The reason so many progressives call the Democrats the more effective evil is because they can get away with stuff that liberals would never let the Republicans get away with. We need to maintain the rage against racism both here and abroad regardless of which party is in power.

      • Greenieweenie says:

        Right? Because racism is the first evil. Racism is the greatest amount of hate for the least cause. Racism encompasses sexism, bigotry and whatever other evil. You cannot have a good understanding of the injustice of racism and fail to grasp the injustice of sexism (see Frederick Douglass, for example). But apparently you can be a feminist and not much of a civil rights advocate…hence the need for intersectionality. I maintain that anyone who believes in human dignity and value should be enraged by the injustice of racism and that should orient all progressive politics. Make good on race, and the world will be a better place for women, Muslims, and LGBTQ.

      • detritus says:

        Yes, yes GW! As Audre Lorde said,
        “I am not free while any woman is unfree, even when her shackles are very different from my own.”

    • Annetommy says:

      I agree with much of what you say but your attribution of this nothing to do with us attitude to ALL is unfair. There is a huge spectrum on this. Good people have always cared about what happens to others, even if it doesn’t directly affect them. Outside the US, Helen Suzman was a marvellous white Jewish woman who worked tirelessly for the end of apartheid. Inside the US, many white people were involved in the1960s civil rights movement. It wasn’t directly affecting them but they took part in the struggle. A rabbi stood beside MLK Jnr. on the bridge in Selma. Two of the three kidnapped and murdered Freedom Riders were white. It’s still happening. It’s a disservice to stigmatise those that fought and continue to fight alongside POC. Unity is strength.

      • Greenieweenie says:

        It’s maybe confusing when I say “white America(ns).” Because I don’t necessarily mean white people. Anyone can become part of white America. I mean the status quo entrenched interests that have always defined those who “have” against those who “have not.” To me, Dems are as much representative of those interests as anyone else. For example, an Asian cop might shoot a black man and get off without a single charge. But it’s a white system that allows him to do that. The system was created by white people (white, landowning men, really) to further their own interests. People of other races can be co-opted by the system, but it is all shaped by white identity politics.

      • Greenieweenie says:

        Similarly, you might be a white person who marched alongside MLK. The descriptor “white” isn’t necessarily a reference to individual race but a social construct and all that it represents. The whites are the haves, the blacks are the have nots.

      • Greenieweenie says:

        Something that always bothered me about Obama was that the system let him through. A black man broke the glass ceiling. But the system never let him represent black interests. He couldn’t talk about race issues without being accused of being too black, too Muslim, too foreign. I’ll say it a million times: this is not equality. Accepting people only as much as they act “white” (ie represent white interests) is not acceptance at all. It’s like accepting women as long as they act like men (the problem is that women are not men, of course, and have a right to equitable treatment that acknowledges those differences). Anyway, sorry, a few glasses of wine in so….a bit sloppy,

    • cd says:

      So good!!!!

  9. Who ARE these people? says:

    Saw 20th C Woman … Annette Bening deserved a nomination.

  10. Sassback says:

    Re: Loving-I think he just thought she didn’t capture the spirit of the real figure, which you have doc footage of so you can compare them easily. I really only disagree partially with his comments on black films, I thought hidden figures was actually a good movie but not a great film I think a couple nominations for a black movies were kind of shoved in because of the backlash from last year not because I necessarily deserve it, but other movies like moonlight definitely got some great recognition.

  11. Rocio says:

    La La Land is overrated. Arrival, Hidden Figures or Moonlight are ten times better.

    If I were to vote, my choice would be Arrival, Denis Villeneuve, Isabelle Huppert and Viggo Mortensen.

  12. lightpurple says:

    Viola belonged in the lead Actress category and she would have won against that competition. Michelle and Naomi both delivered incredible performances and that BSA race should be between the two of them but Viola will win it even though she belongs in the other category. Where she would have won over Emma and Natalie.

  13. Jeesie says:

    Viola really isn’t horribly overdue for an Oscar. This is only her third nomination, and she’s been nominated for everything she conceivably could have been nominated for except perhaps Solaris, which was massively underrated in all areas.

    She was amazing in Doubt, but so was Amy Adams and she lost out too. The Help was hot, hot garbage that Viola did what she could with, but that wasn’t a whole lot. Fences is a really mediocre film and her acting in it is a bit off. Like the direction, it sways between what works for theatre and what works for film. She’s very good in it despite that, and she has the big showy Oscar clip moment, but if it weren’t for this idea she’s overdue it would be between Naomie and Michelle, with Naomie having a good lead.

    Now, there’s definitely an issue in that an actress of her caliber has been in so few good films as a major character. But no ones choosing Oscar winners based on what they might have done given the chance. Based on what she has done, she’s not overdue at all, and it’s a shame she’s going to win for such a blah film when there’s a masterpiece like Moonlight with a performance like Naomie’s in contention.

  14. detritus says:

    This guy.
    I was annoyed by the Emma stone part, but I stopped listening at him talking about how a rape victim should act.

    Then his weird hate-on for Meryl? Who is this guy? Vince and Mel’s bestie?

    I’d be more inclined to believe he believes his quality rhetoric if it didn’t include ‘they’ like that. He’s already psychologically othered black films at that point.

    ‘If they presented the product’ compared to ‘if the product is presented’.

    I don’t even think he believes his bs.

    • Daisy says:

      He’s kinda right about Meryl. She gets nominted for everything these days.

      • Svea says:

        I know producers nominate her because it helps the films, but geez enough is enough! Give someone else a chance! Or create a special category for her.

    • Trixie says:

      Uh, aren’t his comments re Meryl the same comments so many people have with her? That she gets nominated for everything, even the roles she shouldn’t be nominated for? I’ve seen that so many times, especially when she was nominated for that Into the Woods movie. It’s not hate to say that she shouldn’t be nominated for mediocre roles over actresses who turned in better performances.

      • arbelia says:

        This comments on Meryl are really very common on awards forum, on imdb etc… Many people thought the same about the movie, that Hugh Grant should have been nominated not her. It has nothing to do with denigrating her talent , but it looks like a lack of originality . She was not great in that movie .

      • Deedee says:

        I agree. Nominating her for everything she does actually hurts her credibility.

    • Bridget says:

      I mean, this guy was seriously bitchy. But one point: look up the actual plot of Elle and see if what he says has a different context. Because I took it to be a commentary on how Huppert played the movie (being that she played it the same way throughout) and it’s not exactly a straightforward story about sexual assault.

    • mazzie says:

      I can’t disagree with him on Meryl. These days it feels like she get nominated for every single movie she’s in just because she’s Meryl.

    • K says:

      He isn’t wrong about Meryl. He isn’t wrong about Viola being in the wrong category either now whether its worth not voting for her out of protest I don’t know but he isn’t wrong.

      I haven’t seen La La Land so I don’t know if he is right or wrong there.

  15. Bex says:

    Viola should be in lead. Her performance is tremendous, I want her to win, but I get why somebody wouldn’t vote for her in supporting because of the category placement issue. Similar comments were made by voters about Vikander and Mara last year. The nonsense about the films not being there last year is bs though, the Oscars don’t exist in a vacuum.

  16. Pam says:

    There are so many problems with La La Land, I wouldn’t even know where to start, first Emma & Ryan don’t have good voices & they aren’t good dancers either. Compare Emma with Catherine Zeta Jones in Chicago & Emma loses. But I think a lot of people give La la land all the awards because they aren’t real musical fans, I mean the movie is basically a copy paste from other classical Hollywood films, this is more than homage, it’s just copy & paste.
    As for the songs, the best one for me it’s the first song, It’s Another Day of Sun, because they had real singers & dancers & multicultural actors in that scene, then it’s all whitewashed.
    And finally am I the only one hating Emma’s character, she was a horrible person, the ending (spoiler alert) when she imagines their perfect future together, it’s basically Ryan’s character being the perfect husband & giving up on everything for her. They’re selling this as the movie for dreamers, well it’s a movie for her dream, not for his, which is very selfish.

    • LolaBones says:

      I feel like a La La Land apologist, but I read they wanted the leads to have weak voices to give ‘realness’. I think they should have gone with musical actors like Jeremy Jordan, but the movie was still charming.
      I agree about Emma’s character and the endings tho.

    • Salome says:

      I agree with La La Land being overrated, this is just like when people gave all the awards to Jennifer Lawrence for the Silver Lining Playbook, when Emmanuelle Riva was the better performance in Amour. It’s going to happen again, Emma is going to win for horrible La La Land & Isabelle Huppert is going to die without an Oscar. Hollywood gives all the awards to Lawrence & Stone because they are “cool girls” not because they are good actresses.

    • JulP says:

      Um yes I agree about Emma’s character being a bad person! Personally I think both characters were assholes, but yeah. That dream sequence was her getting everything she wanted, and Ryan’s character sacrificing his dreams to pursue hers. And I also don’t get why she never tried to contact him when he was responsible for setting up her success by getting her to go to that audition.

      It’s funny because, reading other people’s comments about LLL, they all seem to love the dream sequence at the end, but I hated it. I don’t think it worked because the film as a whole didn’t sell me on their romance. They never seemed well-matched in the first place.

  17. arbelia says:

    I don’t think that Emma Stone or Natalie Portman would have a chance against Viola if she competed in the lead Category, so its stupid category fraud.

    • Lormac says:

      I can see the logic behind putting Viola in supporting but I think it worked out really badly. She’d have had a really good chance against the women who ended up being nominated. She can act circles around Stone or Portman, Negga is not very well known and a long-shot, and who isn’t sick of Meryl being nominated for EVERYTHING?

  18. JulP says:

    I hope this voter’s idiotic opinion doesn’t reflect what other Oscar voters are thinking because Viola had damned better win her Oscar!!!

    Also, the comments about Elle really pissed me off. This voter clearly didn’t understand that movie at all. The whole point of the film is that it’s subverting the typical rape narrative. This is why I hate that most of the Oscar voters are old white men. They don’t understand, or even try to understand, films about women. One of the Oscar voters last year said he didn’t vote for Saoirse Ronan in Brooklyn because it was just a “happy story,” and “she moves to another country and was happy all the time” so it wasn’t a difficult performance (seriously, did this dude even watch the movie?!) And I recall another Oscar voter said he didn’t vote for Rooney Mara in Carol because she was too sad, and should have been “more like Audrey Hepburn.” It’s no wonder the Oscars have lost their credibility with idiots like this casting the ballots.

    • Bex says:

      I’m not sure the Oscars ever had true credibility among serious cinephiles tbh- I know a fair few that can still rant for hours about Grace Kelly winning in 1954! But when studio execs and producers point to the Oscars as justification for the new movies (invariably centred around white men) being made then the lack of diversity among their membership is a real issue. It’s a cycle that the Oscars are a key component of and this voter not acknowledging that is wilful blindness IMO.

      • Imba says:

        “I’m not sure the Oscars ever had true credibility among serious cinephiles”

        The Oscars … the ultimate, the most important movie awards … where Leonardo DiCaprio was practically able to buy himself an award by hiring every strategist and lobbyist in town.
        The Oscars are pure marketing covered in uber expensive designer clothes whose aura is kept alive by media and gossip outlets.

    • third ginger says:

      It does not reflect much. Anyone willing to be interviewed is usually way out of touch. Viola will win and get one of the biggest standing ovations ever.

      • Neelyo says:

        Yes and next year Oscars will go back to being white because they gave Viola one PLUS a standing ovation.

  19. arbelia says:

    I am totally with him about Viola Davis and category fraud. People who follow closely those awards things and people in the industry hate that , and then actors who have oscars because of category fraud face backlash in one way or another. Most mentions about Vikander oscar on imdb or other sites is about how she didn’t deserve it because it was so blatantly category fraud.

    I mean look at Sir Anthony Hopkins he won in the lead category for a performance of less than half an hour on screen.
    I also think that Viola isn’t so overdue.Yeah she’s an extremly utterly talented actress, but she hasn’t that many performance that were worthy of a nomination, and her first nom was only in 2008. I wouldn’t say that Michael Shannon – he got his first nom in 2008 too – is long overdue and IMO he got more performances worthy of at least a nomination. I mean Annette benning is long overdue, Glenn Close would be too , even Amy adams. Viola she rocks , but not so much.
    But she’s totally winning the oscar, and in this case the studio pushing for this placement was so dumb, because she would have totally win in the lead category .

  20. mom2two says:

    Have not seen LLL, so I have no opinion.

    I’d love to see Viggo win, but I think he’s a long shot here.

  21. Margo S. says:

    Well that took a turn! Loved his opinion on lala land. It was such a boring basic film. Like the film version on a pumpkin spice latte. But everything else. Stop making it sound so difficult, like this is the hardest thing ever and how will you ever cope with voting?! Geez. What a loser.

  22. Svea says:

    For me it ran off the rails and SPOILER ALERT. How gross that her big happy ending is achieved in FIVE years. (I am barely getting out of bed in five years.) And HE is really the one reaponsible for her success because he pushed her. Ugh and Ugh again. Where are the critics? Oh wait there are no major female film critics. Not since Lisa Swartzbaum.

  23. Kori says:

    It’s interesting to think about what may have happened if viola went leading. Say she won (which I think she would’ve). Who gets supporting? It’s hard to say who is the de facto number 2 given her dominance but say Naomie Harris or Octavia Spencer. Ali wins BSA. What if Denzel upset ala the SAGs. You potentially could’ve had all four acting awards go to black actors. Even without Denzel, three of the 4.

    • JulP says:

      That would have been amazing! Though I’d say the Academy would probably give the supporting Oscar to Michelle Williams over Naomie (even though Naomie was way better than her. I haven’t seen Hidden Figures yet, but I don’t think they’d give it to Octavia since she just won a few years ago). I will be forever bitter that Viola didn’t go for lead, because I really think she would have won (and spared us another mediocre white ingenue Best Actress winner).

      • TotallyBiased says:

        OH YOU HAVE TO GO SEE HIDDEN FIGURES!! IT IS SO GOOD!!
        Sorry, I feel very strongly about this movie. It is amazing and wonderful and relevant and NASA and an important story and tears for sad and tears for glad. Katherine Johnson! God-speed, John Glenn! Kevin Costner really earning a paycheck! And MOST OF ALL: Janelle Monae, Taraji, and Octavia MOVING WORLDS!

  24. third ginger says:

    The Academy voters who do these interviews are old and white. The also have likely not worked in years. I would not give much credence to these opinions. Best predictions for Oscar winners are the votes of the guilds. I sympathize with LA LA LAND haters. My husband and I loved it, but I have detested previous winners like BRAVEHEART and DANCES WITH WOLVES and could not understand their wins.

  25. Bridget says:

    At the time LaLa Land came out, people were dying for something escapist and fun and enjoyable. Not to mention, Hollywood goes CRAZY for an industry story. Every year there’s a front runner, no matter who it is, there’s a backlash.

  26. Veronica says:

    I liked the film (despite it’s race issues), but I don’t get it either. It’s by no means the best film of the year or particularly unique.

  27. lee says:

    I feel like la la land is only special to the people in entertainment industry. I mean they are finally acknowledging the reality of Hollywood and there’s no good movies in Hollywood anymore, but award shows are now all joke self petting in the back.

  28. LinaLamont says:

    “A good year for ‘black films’: “That’s exactly it. They blame the Academy for lack of diversity, but last year the films weren’t there. This year, the films were there. The nominations came because the films were so good. It has nothing to do with us. If they presented the product…”

    He’s right, and, everyone who’s jumping on the white privilege bandwagon and dragging him on this is missing the point/facts. Voters vote on what’s in front of them. PRODUCERS/STUDIOS are responsible for what is put out in front of the Academy… what is given to the voters to vote on.   Put the blame/onus where it belongs. NOT ON THE VOTERS. In theory, you vote for the best… that’s the only criterion.

    P.S. … since this is anonymous…LLL sucks…Meryl is like Woody Allen in the 80s and 90s… if either one sneezes(d), they deserve(d) a nomination. It’s enough. They don’t deserve nominations just for existing.

    • Bridget says:

      Gee, and what ends up in front of them?
      #checkyourselfbeforeyouwreckyourself

      • LinaLamont says:

        And, what’s your point? I said it’s the producers/studios that decide what’s made.. not, the Academy voters. The onus is on the authors, producers and audiences to determine what’s on screens. Anyone can vote with their dollars.
        #checkyourreadingcomprehension

      • Bridget says:

        No, you said “what’s in front of them”. They don’t have to choose to honor such a homogenous group. They don’t have to honor the entrants that campaign the hardest. They can choose to go out and see other more diverse movies.

      • LinaLamont says:

        “They don’t have to choose to honor such a homogenous group.”
        Homogenous? Are you looking at the same ballots I am?

  29. Naja says:

    Forget the grammys being irrelevant, the oscars is THE most irrelevant and out of touch award ceremony.

    • LinaLamont says:

      All these awards are inconsequential in the big scheme of things. Put it in perspective… it’s like “The Wizard of Oz”….
      “…Back where I come from, we have universities, seats of great learning where men go to become great thinkers. And when they come out, they think deep thoughts — and with no more brains than you have. But! They have one thing you haven’t got! A diploma!
      … Back where I come from though we have men who are called heroes. Once a year, they take their fortitude out of mothballs and parade it down the main street of the city. And they have no more courage than you have. But — They have one thing that you haven’t got! A medal!
      … They have one thing you haven’t got. A testimonial!”

      It’s nice to win awards; I’m not gonna lie, but, the glow fades pretty quickly and it doesn’t change your life or anyone else’s.

  30. neil says:

    I was pleasantly surprised when he said Hell Or High Water. Now that really is the perfect movie. Memorable lines, memorable scenes, tension, humor, acting, directing, photography, writing and the most well told and relevant story of the contenders.

  31. moon says:

    He wasn’t talking about how a rape victim should behave. He was talking about Isabelle Hupert not making acting choices and playing the same beat throughout the movie. It’s an acting criticism.

  32. ashley says:

    Although it seems fairly obvious, are we certain this is a man speaking? I mean it seems that way (the privilege, my god). But it doesn’t appear the Daily Beast article mentions the gender of the interviewee?

  33. Tallia says:

    I would be embarrassed if Affleck wins. Why he has not been subjected to the scrutiny Nate Parker went through makes me angry.

    Can we also stop with the farce that is Lead and Supporting Actor/Actresses? IS there some kind of criteria that decides what supporting or lead is? Time on screen? Only female or male in movie? Something? Because other actors are being overlooked based on this BS.

    I am hoping Streep and Portman get nothing because the other people in their category are so much more deserving.

    Moonlight for Best Picture.

  34. Sam says:

    I agree with every single thing he said except the black films part. La La Land is overrated as I’ve said for months. Emma and Ryan do not give these great performances so I don’t get all the hype around either one of them. I don’t think anyone in the best actress category should win (it should have been Amy Adams and I’m guessing that’s who this person would have voted for). His comments about Ruth are spot on if you watched the film and it has nothing to do with how rape victims should act. Category fraud sucks and in the future it needs to go. Viola Davis should be nominated in best actress and then maybe we wouldn’t have to sit here and think about Emma Stone being an Oscar winner.

  35. emma says:

    I think this voter has a well-thought out decision process

  36. courtney says:

    those asking about the Criteria that determines the categories why don’t you go to the Academy’s official website besides that the categories have been split for 80 years. Stone is the same age Joanne Woodward was when she won Best Actress for the Three Faces Of Eve in 1958 56 days after they were married. the difference is Ms Woodward studied at the Neighborhood playhouse and the actors studio and didn’t rely on looks which fade with age though she’s still a beautiful woman at age 87

  37. Jeesie says:

    Thank you! Not sure how people didn’t catch that, it was really clear.