A few quick takes on the noms:

I haven't seen most of the movies lol. That being said, all the reactions I saw to All Quiet on the Western Front and Women Talking were lukewarm at best, so a little surprised to see them nominated. I will say it's nice that the blockbusters on the list (Avatar, Top Gun) are actually well made movies instead of some token Marvel pandering.

I guess it's nice that Everything Everywhere All At Once got a bunch of noms, and I can't begrudge most of them, but I genuinely thought Stephanie Hsu was very bad in the movie. I liked the movie enough, but she stuck out like a sore thumb.

I read an article listing a Best Picture nom for the Black Panther sequel as one of the biggest snubs, but did anybody actually like that movie?

Another film getting snubbed is also getting some identity political protest,  Till, about Emmett Till's mother, has been receiving positive reviews, and was awarded by the National Board of Review earlier this year as one of its top ten films of the year.  (Although they also awarded more questionable films like Glass Onion and Woman King while ignoring Tar entirely.)  We can add Till to the list of worthy snubs this year, but it does seem a little uncouth to steer directly into conspiracy territory.  The director of Till is publicly blaming the Academy for "upholding whiteness" and "perpetuating an unabashed misogyny towards Black women".  Unfortunately, these kinds of parallel woke/anti-woke grievances are going to be just a routine ritual going forward as all of the various parties try to work the refs over whatever perceived slights each year as the award season rolls around, but clearly there's plenty of annoying hyperbole on both sides of this demographic crunch.

I want to repeat some of my earlier comments about Woman King here though.  Again, I haven't seen the film, so these criticisms are solely based on its historical perversions.  TheRoot's Shanelle Genai has been outspoken on her outrage concerning this film's snub.  I don't doubt that she had a good time at the theater watching the film.  I don't see a whole lot of evidence that Genai has much appreciation for cinema outside of a form of ethnic representation however (her highest superlative of the film is that it is "beautifully melantated").  I should point out that Genai is not a film critic, and I don't want to hold her to the standard of one.  She's an "entertainment writer" with a focus on "celebrity news and pop culture".  But I do think that her articles on the issues regarding this film and its controversies over its historical integrity are worth highlighting as a way to show how precarious, even insidious, this balance between fact and fiction can be among, say, more casual movie consumers, or perhaps more casual consumers of history as well, in forming certain historical myths.  Basically, it isn't a question of liberties of narrative convenience, it's a question of liberties for socio-political convenience, and we shouldn't confuse these two things.

It's simply not honest for Genai to reduce the criticisms of the film to complaining about "sanitization of atrocities or historical inaccuracies of a fictional film".  That's sleight-of-hand on a grandpa pulling a quarter out of ear level.  This "fictional film" is heavily invested in the legitimacy of its historical basis.  The reason why the film provides an effective vicarious sense of empowerment among its black female audience is precisely because, unlike Black Panther, the Agojie warriors were an actual example of powerful black women "with skills and a fierceness unlike anything the world has ever seen".  The film is inspirational because it is set in the real world, to the extent that Genai remarks "it was almost hard to remember this was a fictional tale".  But the problem is that many people will not remember that.  And when Genai points out that "I hope we’re ready to apply this across the board to other white projects that have been inspired by moments in history that fall short of holistically depicting what actually happened", it suggests that Genai must be unaware of the fact that there are dozens of "white" historical films that have also been heavily criticized for essentially the same issues for exactly the same reasons - because people end up believing the cinema myths.  (That the only example of this she can bring up is Titanic is pretty telling of her lack of cinema experience.)

Star Viola Davis has said, "Most of the story is fictionalized. It has to be."  Yes, there are necessary constrictions on a two-hour narrative.  That Davis' character is a fictional construct doesn't bother me.  Making a single Portugese slave-trader the consolidated face of Europeans doesn't even bother me that much.  Rather let's look at specific liberties and why they were taken.  Genai says, "Cries against its glamourization of the intra-racial participation in the slave trade aside ... you would’ve seen that they actually addressed this."  Yes, apparently it is "addressed".  Not that it stopped anything.  But, I guess, at one point in the film one character says to another, "Hey maybe it's a little fucked up what a huge portion of our economy is devoted to capturing our neighbors and selling them into slavery", but it doesn't appear to go any deeper than that, nor would it have been honest for them to do so.  The historical fact is clear on this.  The extent to which the Agojie rebelled against the Oyo Empire (as depicted in the film), it was for control of this lucrative slave trade, not to stop it.  For me, this isn't some minor discrepancy, and it's made even more vulgar given that the film creating this enormous historical distortion is doing so in the name of so-called progressive inspiration.  That steps from mere inaccuracy into fraud.

I've already mentioned the annual ceremonies performed by the Agojie, where imitation slave raids were performed, and excess slave captives (from 500 to 4000) were sacrificed by beheading.  Woman King, naturally, omits these inconvenient details of their culture.  I understand, only two hours, can't show everything!  But let's be honest.  This was whitewashed, because the film no longer becomes poltically acceptable if they were to acknowledge these facts.  This isn't "edu-tainment", it's propaganda.  Viola Davis continues with her (contractually obligated?) defense of the film, becoming more and more ludicrous with each sentence:

Part of the story that hit me as an artist was these women were unwanted. They were recruited between the ages of eight and 14. They were the women who were not considered desirable. No one wanted to marry them. They were unruly. They were recruited by the King to fight for the kingdom of Dahomey. They were not allowed to marry or have children. The ones who refused the call were beheaded.

Interesting how quickly that turned on itself.  Were these women "unwanted" for marriage, or were they not allowed to marry?  Let's consider this "recruitment" process.  Clearly, with the axe nearby, this was not consensual empowerment as we may choose to understand it today.  In fact, they sound like slaves.  It becomes impossible to appreciate the film as a message of black woman empowerment if any of this is clearly dealt with honestly.

And that's why the film is worse than inaccurate, it's dishonest.  It's a willful calculated fabrication, shielded by a false historical pretense, in order to exploit current political feelings with myths of authenticity.  It's exactly what "woke" has been accused of doing, and it will only jeopardize any truly progressive mission of inclusion and understanding going forward.
 

I'm not a fan of the removal of gendered acting categories, which both the Indies and the BAFTAs have done this year.  The net effect is that two fewer actors receive an award, which is just petty.  I mean, why don't we do away with all of the categories and just award the Best Film?  Because we want to see as many people as possible given credit!

"The whole thing is a goddamn meat parade." -  George C. Scott

I don't want to abolish award recognition entirely, but we shouldn't get caught up in chopping up all of our categories.  Maybe a more expansive itinerary is preferable to a constricted one.

(And I'm still a little hot that Little Big Man  didn't even get a nod that year.)
 

Daniel Kwan, one of the directors of Everything Everywhere All At Once, issued a statement today pleading with his fans to not set anything on fire if the film doesn't win.  Which is good advice.  In fact, I'm hard pressed to think about a time when any Oscar ceremony resulted in mass mayhem.  But why would this year be any different?  It wouldn't be because of the multiple headlines I've seen this week suggesting that if EEAAO doesn't win an Oscar that it would be an insult against the entire Asian community?

Twitter has broken civilization.
 

"A bit"?  Are we talking hours here?

I'd like to see EEAAO eventually, but, I have to admit, part of my reluctance is that I was not fond of their previous Swiss Army Man film.  It seems to me that the new one has the fortune of being in that sweet spot of overlapping audience pleasing (has a lot of cool martial arts fight scenes) and vaguely heady conceits (its whole Zen perspective) that allows it to conjoin the populists with the elitists.  Making it a fairly safe choice for Oscar-worthiness.

Tar was much more provocative and challenging, and, as revealed this week with *anonymous* voters speaking to the press, there were a lot of Oscar voters who didn't particularly like the film because, maybe, it goes some ways into deflating that whole urban NPR pretense of cultural entitlement.  And I don't mean "that scene" with the kid who won't listen to Bach either.  I mean that Lydia Tar inhabits the cultural inferiority complex that fuels a lot of the metro liberal arts crowd.  But rather than a right-wing screed against, say, the NEA or something, it's a thoughtful and disturbing reflection of liberal ideals.  Too thoughtful for the Oscars this year, who have shown themselves willing to pander to the kinds of films that are putting asses back in seats in our post-Covid economy.
 

As far as audience pandering go, Avatar and Top Gun are quite a bit better than Everything Everywhere by virtue of imbuing actual consequence to their proceedings. Also much better on a spectacle front, tbh.

Congratulations crumbs.  Your Marcel hate has cost it the Oscar.  I hope you're happy.

Running a bet on wardrobe malfunction - it's neck and neck between Ariana DeBose and Janelle Monae.

Rolex: "It's cinema"

Yeah, but it's a watch though.