criterionforum.org

TBH I think more millennials know who Blige is than Stevens regardless of talent or youth.

It has nothing to do with talent - she just was at her most famous two decades ago. There’s a basic generational gap that’d be the same with practically anyone who first came to fame then. Stevens is by no means popular with mass culture but it would be beyond dumb to see the plainly devoted fanbase he does have (in a demo that, in particular, doesn’t really go out of their way to watch awards shows) and not try to make something happen. (Unless they’ve just given up on getting young people interested, which I doubt)

That's a different argument than the one you first posed and I reacted to. Two decades ago, by the way, is exactly when most millennials would be growing up and developing an interest in music. It would be ridiculous to assume more people in any age range really know about him over her. Same thing with, say, Will Smith versus Chalamet. Smith is well over his hump, but still unquestionably would have more name recognition. (barely worth noting, but apparently Stevens and Blige have about the same number of monthly listeners on Spotify).

domino harvey wrote:Here

Sorry, but I'm not seeing anything in that interview that confirms that the Academy is not planning for Stevens to perform or that there will only be three performances. This interview was published just a week after nominations, so it's likely that official performer/presenter scheduling hadn't even begun yet (I think they're still scheduling presenters). I didn't gather from his answer that he had officially not been asked, but rather that it hadn't yet occurred.

Chris Beacham from Gold Derby is the one saying only three songs will be performed, none by Sufjan, though it's based on rumor right now. The bizarre rules of the music branch stipulate either zero, three, or five songs must be performed

I'm not buying this yet, especially considering Sufjan's song is the only one in the category from a Best Picture nominee (the two songs cut in 2016 were the only nominations for two comparatively little-seen movies).

I'm glad to hear this is just a rumor, but time is indeed ticking, I wonder why we haven't heard the final rundown of who's performing by now with the ceremony less than 2 weeks away.

I would imagine it has more to do with time than any outward animosity. They're really picky about time at the Oscars and because this is the biggest of all the awards stages I imagine they've prepared for all the MeToo stuff that is going to go on instead. It'll be a ceremony to watch that's for sure.

Yeah, if the cutoff for time is three songs, then it makes logical sense to go with Blige (name recognition and real bad optics if you cut her), Remember Me (because families/kids), and This is Me (because it is awful, I mean a big showstopper from a hit musical made to be performed at an awards show).

Bummer if these rumors are true, Sufjan Stevens performing was the only thing that was actually going to get me to watch the Oscars ceremony. I guess millennial indie fans aren't the biggest viewer demographic, but by shafting Stevens it seems like the Oscar organizers would be squandering an opportunity to build good-will among viewers that don't usually watch award shows.

Feel like the fact the Oscars broadcast was extended an extra half-hour has been weirdly ignored (not just here)

But starting an hour earlier, right?

The half-hour is being made up by starting at 8:00 p.m. EST, rather than the usual 8:30 p.m. TBH, I don't really understand why they hadn't done this a long time ago, unless there's some play involving that people like being able to watch the red carpet coverage at prime-time? I assume they'll give everyone an extra 5 seconds in their speeches as a courtesy, but even still that's only eating up 2 minutes of what's probably an extra 20-ish minutes of total new time including ads. Other than including musical numbers I don't really know what else there is to do with the time! (I'd love them to bring back the costume design dance number, for one)

(And - it'll never happen - maybe this new amount of time is a step towards finally adding a casting and/or stunts category?)

I think the general reason it starts on the later end is because they still would like it to be somewhat of an evening event on the west coast, but maybe the upshot of this will be less "and my kids: you should be in bed!" jokes during speeches

Also, don't underestimate the power of local ABC affiliates who want their nightly news broadcasts to be able to start on time.

I remember when I was a kid in the '70s the Oscars began at 10 PM on the East Coast, so I could barely watch an hour before going to bed and finding out what won the next morning.

Excellent news!

I quickly googled to refresh my memory on the Best Picture nominees in the hopes of seeing the rest of them before Sunday, thinking that all I had left was to slog through Darkest Hour, and was reminded to my horror that The Post was nominated - so much for that idea, there's no way I'm consuming both of those between now and then, and therefore probably ever

They're both good! The Post is, without question, the single film nominated for any award with the most radical, rebellious streak that really dares to upend the conventional notions of a prestige picture, and it's utterly heartbreaking to me that there's a legitimate possibility it will be the last film of its type Spielberg makes. I'm really sick of the dumb "didn't see Darkest Hour because zzz" contrarianism that seems to be running rampant; the raves out of TIFF died down, but it still recieved a reception far warmer than something like Theory of Everything or maybe even Imitation Game and shouldn't just be lumped in as part of that boring pack.

Overall, this is one of the strongest BP lineups in years, and despite the perfectly legitimate backlash concern about Three Billboards coming out on top, the fact that we're actually talking about five or six of what are generally being held as the best films of the year (in the sense they're the consistent performers with critics groups and the like) is a huge credit to the fact that they kind of *did* fix the Oscars.

Ribs wrote:Overall, this is one of the strongest BP lineups in years, and despite the perfectly legitimate backlash concern about Three Billboards coming out on top, the fact that we're actually talking about five or six of what are generally being held as the best films of the year (in the sense they're the consistent performers with critics groups and the like) is a huge credit to the fact that they kind of *did* fix the Oscars.

For all the annual bitching and moaning among cinephiles about the Oscars and how they don't matter and don't ever actually nominate or reward the best in film, this is a really important and under-acknowledged story of the last couple of years. The Ringer had a bunch of articles up yesterday revisiting the 2013 Oscars (recognizing 2012 films), and the contrast between that year's staggering oversights and regrettable decisions and the Oscars of the last two years is really striking.

That said, Ribs, I would solidly lump The Post and Darkest Hour in with the "old Academy" way of reflexively rewarding earnest historical dramas with unearned nominations, especially if they're British or happen to star Meryl Streep and/or Tom Hanks. The tyranny of the British history lesson with comedic elements (The King's Speech, Philomena, and on and on) can apparently never be eliminated, only contained, and if you can convince me of the radicalism of The Post, you deserve an award.

Frankly the British films you cite are better than most of the films that got nominated this year.

Oh no! Not you too, knives!

I'm on the opposite end of things to Ribs, Darkest Hour and The Post and the weakest and second-weakest films nominated for Best Picture; The Post has more going on and is much more energetic than you might first assume and is overall mixed-topositive, but the editing seems rough from a technical/rushed sense (for instance there's an insert shot of the New York Times sign right before cutting to a shot of a character running into the building where the sign is perfectly legible in frame), the script is as heavy-handed as you would assume from Spielberg+the political climate and the first and last scenes are genuinely terrible.

Darkest Hour is even worse in the way it leans on one's knowledge of the historical events in lieu of anything dramatically interesting and the directing is much worse than Spielberg's, substituting camera gimmicks and jarring close-ups for actual engaging film-making . Gary Oldman, however, is great. (one of the things I always hate about awards season is how people crawl out of the woodwork to denounce a performance when it becomes the front runner) It's completely obvious and not revelatory but nonetheless gives me something to latch onto in a sea of stogy prestige and miserable cliche.

One film that should have been nominated for Best Picture in each of the Oscars’ 90 years of nominations (would have been a more interesting list if they’d also chosen at least one actual nominee to throw out for the years with a hard, unmet cup through 2008).