This Explains A Lot
In my 33 years of watching the Oscars®, I've never fully understood how certain films (*cough* CRASH) have prevailed over competition that was clearly more beloved. Now I know why.
In this Reuters article, the process for Academy Award members making nominations and choosing winners is outlined.
And unfortunately I have to say I liken it to our American Electoral College system of choosing a president = it doesn't seem totally fair.
What are your thoughts on the Academy's methods? Leave a comment and let me know.
```
Labels: 2009, Cinebanter, nominees, Oscars, Tassoula, voting
posted by Tassoula @ 11:50 PM
2 Comments:
I heard about their ways in some podcasts that I listened to. It's unfair to do that.
The Academy needs to change its policy.
Scratch that. The Academy needs to get their head out of their ass and pick the best movies of the year, instead of movies that are "Oscar baity."
Personally I don't think it's unfair. The botom line is that the nominees were trimmed down to the final five, based on the idea that a substantial number people think IT IS THE BEST FILM OF THE YEAR. Otherwise a film that appears in 95% of the voters' ballots but none placed that film as their # 1 film would be nominated. What's the point of nominating a film in the Best Picture category when nobody thinks it's the best film in the first place. The existing procedure ensures that all five nominees has a decent shot at winning the award.
Anyway, regarding the Kate Winslet category brouhaha, what's fascinating is that in order for her to be nominated in the Best Actress category from "The Reader" (as opposed to supporting), she has to get more votes in the Best Actress than in the Supporting Actress category from the film The Reader, AND she also has to get more Best Actress votes for the film "The Reader" than for "Revolutionary Road". Considering that she was campaigned as supporitng actress in "The Reader", it's fascinating how it turned out.
Post a Comment
<< Home