criterionforum.org

A lotta big names in world cinema on that list. I'm trying to find the most unexpected name. Many below-the-line-talent and professionals I'm unfamiliar with, but I'm thinking...Mary J. Blige or Sia? (Not that I don't think they're any less worthy than many of the other names on that list.)

I am flabbergasted that Julie Dash is only now being asked to join. That really puts the academy's white boy's club ethos into perspective. Daughters of the Dust was added to the National Film Registry more than ten years ago.

I am stunned by this list. Is this the result of their diversity push? Because if it is, let's have more!

Dash is very overdue and wonderful surprise to see Victor Nunez - I think he teaches now, but after some wonderful films, he seemed to disappear off the map.

Other notable names: Maren Ade, Catherine Breillat, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, Mia Hansen-Løve, Hou Hsiao-hsien, Abbas Kiarostami, Abdellatif Kechiche, Ken Loach, Kiyoshi Kurosawa, Yorgos Lanthimos, Sebastián Lelio, Julia Loktev, Lucretia Martel, Cristian Mungiu, László Nemes, Joshua Oppenheimer, Park Chan-wook, Lynne Ramsay, Carlos Reygadas, Apichatpong Weerasethakul and Jia Zhangke.

Honestly, Hou Hsiao-hsien, Abbas Kiarostami, Ken Loach (now 80 years old - Jesus, took them long enough), Apichatpong Weerasethakul and Jia Zhangke are enormous additions, it's actually pretty shameful it's taken so long to invite them.

hearthesilence wrote:Ken Loach (now 80 years old - Jesus, took them long enough)

I'd never realised this before, but despite his nearly 100 international awards (according to imdb), none of his films has ever even been nominated for an Oscar. For some reason that surprises me.

I'm a little confused why it was the Writer's branch that invited Lee Chang-dong and Hirokazu Kore-ada but not the directors'. Does it actually make any difference? I know you get to vote for everything you want in the awards proper, but are you not allowed to nominate for Best Director or the like if you're a writer?

Directors are the only ones who get to nominate the directors, not sure about other branches

That's true of all of the branch awards except producers who of course have best picture. I can't speak for Kore-eda, but Lee being in the writer's branch makes sense since he is an author independent of his direction.

I'm impressed with the new class. It seems #OscarsSoWhite may have a lasting impact. Though I'm disappointed the overall % of women and people of color barely moved. I guess that'll take time.

It's important to remember though that the POC percentage is not terribly reliable as the meaning of that can differ wildly from institution to institution. For example Naji Abu Nawar, of Bedouin decent, would not count as a person of colour on any US documentation despite colloquially being considered as such.

A few other new members I'm happy to see: Betty Buckley, Tatsuya Nakadai, Silvia Pinal, and Carl Davis.

Luke M wrote:I'm impressed with the new class. It seems #OscarsSoWhite may have a lasting impact. Though I'm disappointed the overall % of women and people of color barely moved. I guess that'll take time.

Absolutely. Even with a class of this size with this much diversity, it's still being diluted by a much, much larger pool that's also very male and very white - unless they're able to drop a huge number of members due to inactivity (FWIW, the pruning hasn't happened yet), it's going to take many years to get anything resembling the actual breakdown of the general population.

It doesn't and shouldn't match the population at-large, it should match the makeup of the talent pool, which is not super diverse in the first place and is, again, where the real issue lies

Of course. If all goes well, they diversify the talent pool to that degree, and the Academy will then reflect that, but it's going to be a very long while.

And maybe then they can get to work on making good movies again amirite #OscarsSoMediocre

domino harvey wrote:It doesn't and shouldn't match the population at-large, it should match the makeup of the talent pool, which is not super diverse in the first place and is, again, where the real issue lies

I'd agree with you (concerning column B) if they kept it to talent from America or even just english speaking countries, but this year the field included a lot of people outside that sphere like Nakadai and Haroun.

swo17 wrote:And maybe then they can get to work on making good movies again amirite #OscarsSoMediocre

Hah, when this whole thing started, my first thought was, if you're going to nominate mediocrity, the least you can do is make it diverse, because "we only nominate the best" is complete bull****.

Echoing with the forum consciousness, appreciate not just the diversity makeup, pleased to see such a exceptional director's lineup with many arthouse heavyweights getting their due. The new members could possible see some more high-browish choices in the years to come.


Also with that in mind, do you guys think Ang Lee will snatch off a third Best Director win, or does Scorsese finally get his second from the Academy? Another director coming away with the award?

hearthesilence wrote:

swo17 wrote:And maybe then they can get to work on making good movies again amirite #OscarsSoMediocre

Hah, when this whole thing started, my first though was, if you're going to nominate mediocrity, the least you can do is make it diverse, because "we only nominate the best" is complete bull****.

That's how we'll know we've finally made it--when someone other than a crotchety old white man refuses to accept their award.

Jimmy Fallon to Host 2017 Golden Globe Awards...**yawn**

Gold Derby has published their first round of Oscar predix, which, while never foolproof this early on, still give some valuable insight into the race as it's shaping up

domino harvey wrote:Gold Derby has published their first round of Oscar predix, which, while never foolproof this early on, still give some valuable insight into the race as it's shaping up

I'm not familiar with that website. Are the 'experts' film critics? Have they seen the films? If not, then what are these predictions based upon?

They are a mix of critics, pundits, and Hollywood insiders, who are gauging the "word on the street" from test screenings, internal studio opinions, script buzz, and other industry sources. Oscars have nothing to do with quality but with narratives and intra-industry prestige or interest, so they tend to be more accurate than others, but tides will turn once the contributors and editors are able to consider the film in conjunction with its actual screenings (for instance, La La Land will have its first public screening tomorrow, and afterward they'll be able to better predict its award chances)-- every year there are total busts that seemed like sure things beforehand, and so it will be again

domino harvey wrote:They are a mix of critics, pundits, and Hollywood insiders, who are gauging the "word on the street" from test screenings, internal studio opinions, script buzz, and other industry sources. Oscars have nothing to do with quality but with narratives and intra-industry prestige or interest, so they tend to be more accurate than others, but tides will turn once the contributors and editors are able to consider the film in conjunction with its actual screenings (for instance, La La Land will have its first public screening tomorrow, and afterward they'll be able to better predict its award chances)-- every year there are total busts that seemed like sure things beforehand, and so it will be again

Well, you can certainly say that again. Of course, there are always a handful of quality films entered into the race each year, particularly this one (or at least I hope so). But, the Oscars has never recognized the 'best in film' across the board. And, therefore, its popularity amongst the younger generations has waned. I, myself, don't have a vested interest in the awards show, but I do find the preoccupation with it fascinating.

cinéaste25 wrote:But, the Oscars has never recognized the 'best in film' across the board. And, therefore, its popularity amongst the younger generations has waned.

I think that's an exceedingly generous explanation for why younger generations aren't interested in the Oscars. Isn't it more likely that they're just interested in a different kind of mediocre film? I'm pretty sure that filling the nominations with films by Lisandro Alonso, Cristi Puiu or Joanna Hogg wouldn't result in the increased engagement of under-25s! Chucking a bunch of superhero films in there, maybe.