On this episode of ACADEMY ANONYMOUS:
- Has the Karla Sofía Gascon controversy sunk the "Emilia Pérez" campaign? Can anything be salvaged?
- Do Oscar voters care about social media backlash
- The problem at the heart of the Critics Choice Awards organization
- Forecasting the winners at the Directors Guild & Producers Guild
- A new front-runner after this weekend?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Jules (00:14):
hey, welcome back to academy, anonymous, I'm jules
and I'm joseph and on thisepisode we're going to tackle a
few um topics.
We're going to start with a fewwords on the Critics' Choice
Awards organization.
We kind of have a kind of aweird relationship to them.
Joseph (00:33):
Right.
Jules (00:33):
You know, we are not you know fully over the moon with
that organization for severalreasons.
We'll go into it.
They're a bit odd.
And we'll also have a few wordson the controversy that has
surrounded Emilia Perez, sincethe tweets have come out about
Carlos Sofia Gascon, and howthat's going to affect or how we
see it affecting, emilia Perezas a whole on Oscar night, its
(00:57):
awards chances.
And then we'll do a briefprediction for the upcoming
Director's Guild Awards and theProducer's Guild Awards.
Joseph (01:06):
On paper, this is supposed to be a pretty big
weekend.
We have Critics' Choice winners, director's Guild Award winners
and Producer's Guild Awardwinners.
That's on paper, but because ofeverything that's going on with
the Emilia Perez Carlos SofiaGascon sort of campaign emilia
(01:28):
perez carlos sofia gascon sortof campaign we may end up seeing
that these award shows andthese awards bodies are maybe a
little bit late to the party andthey're not going to be fully
reflective.
Yeah, they may lag behind interms of whatever overall effect
.
Jules (01:39):
Um that sort of headline stealing news about emilia perez
is going to have at the Oscarsthey might not be so good at
forecasting what's going tohappen at the Academy because
the voting window for several ofthose awards were happening,
For example, the Critics' Choice.
The voting window was happeningprior to the Emilia Perez
(01:59):
scandal.
It got pushed back so muchbecause of the LA fires and
certainly the scandal wasoccurring while the voting was
happening during the producersguild awards and the directors
guild.
But we still don't know howmany of the members who ended up
voting, how many of them, wereaware of the controversy, which
seems like it had roots, youknow, very online.
(02:21):
You know that's sort of whereit originated.
How many of them you know wereon social media?
You know that's sort of whereit originated.
How many of them you know werefully aware of the controversy?
And even if they were aware,it's still a question mark how
voters at large, throughout thisentire industry, are going to
react.
Joseph (02:38):
Is that going to have an effect or not is going to be
the large question, and thesemay not be the best award shows
to demonstrate that.
Something like the BAFTA iscertainly going to have a voting
window where this is right,smack in the middle, and that
may be more significant there interms of reading, where the
mindset of the voters is at.
Jules (02:59):
Exactly, and I think that we'll know how much this
controversy has sort ofpenetrated this awards bubble if
, for example, amelia Perezshould have been the favorite to
win the DGA and the PGA and theCritics Choice and even beyond,
possibly even likely the SAGAwards.
(03:21):
So I think this weekend, ifAmelia Perez gets completely
snubbed, then I think that's apretty good indication that the
controversy has officiallypenetrated the bubble.
Joseph (03:32):
And goodbye Amelia Perez , to winning Best Picture or
hello, amelia Perez, tolaunching a new campaign in
terms of, you know, rehabbingits image.
I mean, it has enough time.
It has enough time to bounceback.
Jules (03:46):
That's all I'm saying I don't know, because I want to
remind everyone that the oscarsare march 2nd, but the voting
window is february 11 tofebruary 18 so they do have time
to launch an all-out strike totry to turn this narrative
around I mean, I I hear whatyou're saying and I think it's
certainly possible, but I thinkmy gut is that the window's
(04:09):
still too small and I think thatthey're already trying to pivot
by sort of expunging CarlosOvea Gascon from the campaign,
as we saw over the last few daysin several articles, variety
for example.
So I think that's theirsolution just pretend Carlos
Ovea Gascon is not Emilia Pariswhen she really is, and focus
(04:32):
more on Zoe and the movie andJacques and the awards it's won
and the nominations it's had.
So they're already trying that.
I think it's too little of awindow.
I think it certainly doesn'thelp that the film is called
Emilia Perez and the actressplaying Emilia Perez is Carlos
Sofia Gascon.
I think that really hurts Frommy experience.
Joseph (04:52):
what I would say to that is that it's hard not to sort
of it's synonymous now.
Yeah.
Jules (04:59):
Emilia Perez is Carlos Sofia Gascon.
Carlos Sofia Gascon is thiscontroversy?
Joseph (05:03):
The campaign should not be to eliminate Carla Sofia
Gascon from the center of thefilm.
The campaign should be to rehabher from the position of the
center.
So I think that they're makinga mistake by adopting the
strategy of okay, well, let'sjust pretend she doesn't exist
and we'll ice her out of all theceremonies, of all the campaign
(05:23):
stops, of all the promotion.
We'll ice her out of all theceremonies of all the campaign
stops, of all the promotion,will ice her out.
I think that's the wrongapproach.
I think the right approach, theapproach that could save some
face, is to sort of gatheraround her and sort of support
the idea of separating theperson now from the person, then
the person from you know, theperson from the statements.
Jules (05:43):
Right.
I think they're really having ahard time with that.
You know, as we saw in thosearticles, the camp, the Netflix
camp, the award at least thecamp that's concentrated on the
awards push is really separatingitself from Carlos Sofia Gascon
, just sort of having to fendfor herself, doing these
unauthorized interviews, and thesort of schism between the two
(06:05):
just feels like it's growing bythe hour.
So I don't know if there'senough time to sort of reverse
course on that.
Maybe you're right.
I think it would have been asmarter call to do that.
Let's own it, let's apologize,let's move forward, let's take
accountability.
I think that's an issue that alot of people have had with her
(06:25):
and her apologies and thiscontroversy.
They don't feel that there'senough accountability, uh, that
there's maybe possibly juststill too many excuses, um, just
still not enough accountability.
And maybe if they together hadsort of assessed that the best
thing would be to take fullaccountability and apologize
earnestly and move forward, thatcould have really helped a lot.
(06:49):
But I think carla sofia gasconas a person, I think she's
someone who was very interestedin defending herself and I don't
think that that has helped thiscontroversy.
I think it just made it worse.
Joseph (07:01):
I I wonder if and again, I don't think Netflix has ever
been the best campaigner.
I think the number of bestpicture trophies that they've
won, which is zero, demonstratesthat, even when they're
favorites.
But I do wonder if this is alittle bit of karma for having
category fraud with Zoe Zaldana.
And had you built the filmaround two leads, or around
(07:24):
Zaldana as the lead, maybe youwould be in a better place right
now.
That's a good point.
Jules (07:29):
I think that's a really good point.
I I think that if Carlos SofiaGascon had gone supporting
though, she would have been thefavorite to win that category
right and she would still be ina position of, well, who's going
to win supporting actress now,whereas there's a lot of options
in actress, they didn't have togo for color sofia gus gone.
It seems like that's definitelynot going to happen.
If there's one award thatamelia paris won't be winning on
(07:51):
an oscar night, it will be bestactors.
Um, so I think that's aninteresting uh point, but I'm
not really sure if it would havechanged much it would have
changed the issue of having toice out your, your center of
your film you're, it's easier toice out your supporting player
than it is to ice out the leadof your film and the lead actor
(08:12):
or actress nominee for your film.
Joseph (08:13):
It's more noticeable.
Jules (08:14):
Yeah, it's more noticeable and so, continuing on
this controversy since westarted talking about it, um,
it's, it's a big question markhow voters are going to react.
Joseph (08:24):
I think we're going to get a taste of what the industry
, uh, is feeling this weekend,but, like you mentioned earlier,
uh, as we started, it might bea faulty taste yeah, might be
lagging it might be that emiliaparis does really well and that
still doesn't prove that it'sgoing to do well on austral
night, but it is an opportunityto start the campaign, to
(08:45):
relaunch the campaign into sortof uh, you know, uh a campaign
where they sort of rehabilitatethe image of amelia perez.
Possibly winning nothing isgoing to help amelia perez sort
of get through this hurdle, thengetting onto a podium and
having to make a speech, and ifyou can make the right speech,
then I think you're set I wonderif that's something that carlos
(09:07):
sofia gascon could have done.
Jules (09:09):
slash should have done.
You know, I know that therewere several events this past
week and they're going to bemore that she's skipping.
I know that I just heard today,I believe, that she's skipping
the goya awards and initially Ithink she was going to go.
I think, as scary as it mightbe for a person, for any person,
in the midst of a controversy,to win an award and have to be
(09:33):
center stage, at the spotlightand give a speech, it's an
opportunity.
It's an opportunity that youcan take to really, as you said,
rewrite this narrative that iscurrently occurring.
And so I'm not sure that sheand her personal camp have taken
enough stock of the opportunitythey can have in these award
shows to really confront andaddress what's going on, address
(09:56):
the errors that there may havebeen when she made her apologies
and just turn the page.
And so the opposite ishappening Everyone's sort of
digging in their heels and beingvery firmly in their side of
the argument and the schism, andso nothing is happening.
It's just getting worse, Iagree.
Joseph (10:18):
And I will say that as we talk about it, I think it's
important to bring up that.
Yes, she's being judged forthese statements and these
tweets, and we've seen over thecourse of the campaign that
she's demonstrated herself to bea very steadfast individual, an
individual that you know willdefend her supporters and defend
(10:40):
you know her friends and herfamily and her colleagues and
the artists that she made thefilm with almost to a fault, and
you know her friends and herfamily and her colleagues and
the artists that she made thefilm with almost to a fault, and
you know that's a good thingand a bad thing.
You know that's a virtue and aflaw.
Right, unfortunately, you'recaught in this awkward position
right now, but I don't thinkthat, you know, anyone is beyond
sympathizing with that.
Yeah, yeah.
(11:00):
But I'll also say this is thatyou and I and you and I have
talked about it is that rightnow, to a certain degree, she's
sort of the scapegoat for?
what has been sort of thissocial media online backlash to
this film that's been buildingup, that's been building up and
that you know will get you,after you, get 13 academy award
nominations.
(11:21):
If you're a voter and you thinkyou're going to hand someone an
academy award nomination andnot inspire backlash, then I
think you're not payingattention, and so I really do
think that I I credit theacademy for some of this issue,
because as an academy member,you have to bring that sort of,
I think, judiciousness to whatyou're doing, and I don't think
(11:41):
that this is a film that needed13 nominations.
I think that had this film tiedsomething like the Brutalist
which seemed appropriate orConclave, it would not be
bearing the grunt of thisbacklash.
Jules (11:55):
Right, I do hear what you're saying.
However, I will say that theproblematic nature of the film,
legitimate criticisms thatpeople have had about the film,
the problematic nature of thefilm, legitimate criticisms that
people have had about the film,you know that's not always the
case with the quote-unquote mostnominated film.
Obviously.
Last year you had oppenheimermost nominated film, um, and it
won um obviously, but you knowit wasn't really courting this
(12:19):
amount of criticism and judgmentand discussion and debate, um,
that amelia paris is, becauseamelia paris is a more.
It's a film that's obviouslymore controversial in terms of
how it was made and, uh, thetopics it's trying to tackle and
how sensitive it was to theworld that it's exploring and so
(12:41):
, um, and the themes that it'sexploring, and and so you're
just not going to have thatevery year with the most
nominated film and every yearthere is a quote-unquote most
nominated film.
Joseph (12:51):
Right, it's not a given, but I will say there is no
speedier path to being hated,possibly, than there is being
celebrated, right.
So when you have any sort ofindividual or film or piece of
art that is celebrated to such adegree, it gets easy to pick on
(13:14):
them right, and it gets easy tosort of focus in on them and to
start ripping them apart fortheir flaws instead of building
them up for their virtues.
Um, I think that's always beena factor.
You're right, it's not for, youknow, the most nominated film,
but in this case it was alreadya, as you said, controversial
situation and the academy sortof turning a blind eye to all
(13:37):
those sort of holes in the movieand holes in the production has
only exacerbated the responseof social media.
Now, as you said, it's debatablewhether the Academy gives an F
about any take that social mediaor film Twitter or Oscar
Twitter has about Emilia Perez.
It's really debatable.
Jules (13:56):
Now, what's not debatable is that when the star of your
film sort of breaks down on CNNthat they're going to be able to
avoid that completely negativefeelings.
(14:17):
You know, when you have a tweettalking about Hitler and you
have uh tweets, you know theSelena Gomez tweet, you know the
, you know, was particularlypiercing, I thought, because
they worked together, um, evenif it was made before they
worked together.
Joseph (14:31):
Well, didn't she discredit it?
I thought that she discreditedthat one as that, I guess on the
CNN interview she did.
Jules (14:35):
It's really hard to know what is real, what is not.
Joseph (14:38):
That's part of the problem, yeah.
Jules (14:40):
Yeah, exactly, no-transcript.
Joseph (14:59):
Which is what social media is designed for.
It's designed for your mostreckless, insensitive.
Take.
Whatever brain fart you have atthat minute, just tweet it.
That's the design of Twitter.
I'm just saying let's attackthe system as well.
Jules (15:11):
Right.
Well, I don't think everyperson on social media is that
way, but certainly I thinksocial media sort of begets a
lot of people's worst impulses.
Um, and I think that's you'reright, that's a, that's a that's
a really tragic thing about theentire social media apparatus.
Um, but you know, you can'thelp but see those tweets and,
you know, feel a certain type ofnegative way.
(15:34):
Um, so I understand the peoplewho are upset and I understand
the people who are frustratedand disappointed.
Joseph (15:40):
I understand.
Jules (15:40):
Especially since you know this was an iconic.
This was a landmark nomination.
It should have been celebratory.
You know 100% of the way, so Itotally understand the sincere
disappointment and frustrationwith what's happened.
Joseph (15:56):
I think the landmark nature, though, of the
achievement might also be one ofthe issues here, in the sense
that I don't doubt that thereare some people throwing wood on
the fire to bring down thefirst trans nominee.
I haven't read everything, butI'm sure they're out there.
I mean, it is Twitter.
But I'll also say you know,that piece of history is so
meaningful to people, even onsocial media, that the degree to
(16:21):
which you have to sort of carryyourself is tough.
It's not easy.
Jules (16:26):
Yeah, and, and, and.
I think there's somethingreally tragic about this whole
thing.
You know, uh, it's, it's sotragic to have, you know,
certainly, uh, uh, like you were, like we were saying, a
landmark nomination, sort ofsort of fizzle into this
catastrophe.
It's something that it's goingto be hard to ever erase from
(16:48):
this nomination Right.
And so the first is also one ofthe most chaotic, problematic,
tragic, you know sort of thingsthat have happened to the
Academy with regards to actorsbeing nominated.
Joseph (17:06):
I absolutely agree.
And just to build on that also,you know, because again we
should be fair and not justattack the individual, attack
the campaign, attack theproducers.
And I think again, if you havean issue with that film it's
every bit as much as jacquesarriard's fault as it is carla's
, possibly more.
But I will say this is that wehad a spectacular year for best
(17:27):
actress, with wonderful films,wonderful contenders, wonderful
performances, wonderful roles.
But sometimes that brings outthe worst in people yeah and in
film, twitter.
And in oscar, twitter and, inyou know, the movie, sort of
public sphere of people sharingtheir opinions, which is which
is great.
Sometimes it can get toxic yeah,and I think stan twitter, stan
(17:49):
twitter and so like when youhave, you know, fernando torres
fans attacking I don't knowcarla sofia fans, and then carla
sofia fans and fernanda torres,fernanda torres fans, not just,
you know, arguing against eachother, but then they leak into
the actual performer or theartist and then they're having
to fight things that are coming,things that are being drudged
(18:11):
up from the past.
It can't be easy yeah, you knowdefinitely um, it would have
been interesting to see all thiscome out when she was cast,
when the movie premiered at con,but it really only comes out
once.
That oscar nomination, you know, comes out right, right.
So I do think that'sunfortunate.
There's a certain toxicity tothe whole system that, you know,
we're certainly a part of.
(18:31):
We comment on this, but youknow you have to sort of check
that behavior.
Yeah, um, as you're sort ofengaging in this, because
there's a productive, beneficial, rewarding way to interact with
it, that doesn't have to, youknow, result in people icing
each other out and beingdisinvited and, you know,
reporting the truth.
There's nothing wrong withreporting the truth, I'm all for
(18:51):
that.
Let's also, you know, give us aspace to sort of absorb that.
You know, let it marinate intoour consciousness, you know, let
it marinate into our emotions,and then come up with an
adequate response and not justsort of, you know, want to throw
this person away all of asudden.
You know.
Jules (19:08):
But I also think I completely agree with you, but I
also think that, again,accountability is really
important.
You know when you mess up andyou make mistakes and you do
things that you shouldn't havedone, even if it was an earlier
version of yourself that is moreflawed, more problematic, less
enlightened.
You know, if you made thosemistakes, you need to own up to
(19:30):
it.
You need to, you know, takeaccountability and have
sincerity with theaccountability that you're
taking.
And I think if she hadapproached it with more
sincerity and more passion withregard to her um, apologetic
tone, uh, sentiment, rather, um,I think that things would have
(19:52):
been different.
You know, I really feel thatthere was.
You know, I know it looks likewe were at the edge of a cliff
and there was no saving it, butI can't help but feel that if
certain steps had been taken,certain approaches had been
different.
Joseph (20:09):
You're trying to really understand where the criticisms
are coming from, and trying totake accountability it doesn't
really serve you or anyone tosort of qualify that apology and
(20:30):
sort of you know first, state,you know the you know, emphasize
the context and where you'recoming from and the separation.
Sometimes, as you say, justhave to own the apology um, the
same time, there's the tragedyof it.
As we had mentioned before,that's just a character flaw
right, because I feel like.
It's the same individual we'veseen, and people were
(20:50):
championing and celebrating, youknow, almost a year ago when
Khan came out right.
It's just a person who is very,again, very steadfast and very,
dare I say, stubborn, willful,willful even in her loyalty and
even when it comes to owning it,she won't abandon herself and
(21:10):
abandon.
You know what was in her mindand her heart as she wrote those
things, or you knowunderstanding where her mind and
her heart is now Again.
It's just character flaw andit's unfortunate.
That's a little bit of thetragedy, right.
Jules (21:24):
Right, it is character flaw, but, as we've mentioned
several times, you know,accountability is just so
important and when somethinglike this comes out and I think
a person is forced to confrontyou know, really problematic,
really seriously problematic anddangerous and ugly way of uh
(21:47):
looking at things that arereally significant and important
, um, I think you know a personhas to be open and willing to do
that work, to face that, toconfront that and to want to
rise above that and to own it,as we've been saying, and try to
grow from it.
Joseph (22:08):
I completely agree.
And you know, even if it ischaracter flaws sometimes,
oftentimes an individual, anyindividual, will be pushed at a
moment in this world wherethey're going to have to meet
the moment and rise above thoseflaws.
And not everyone can meet thatmoment, but that's the challenge
(22:29):
of when that arises in anyone'slife and you know, I'm not sure
that she's met the moment onthis occasion.
Right, Dare I say.
You know, I'm reminded of thewhole Lydia Tarr, of it all
right.
But you know, if there'sanything we learned from that
movie, it's that idea again.
You don't have to be reduced toyour flaws, but there will come
(22:50):
a moment where you have to sortof again.
As we said, meet the moment andmeet the moment, for you know
what it means for everyone else.
Jules (22:57):
Yeah.
Joseph (22:58):
And it's only a question whether you as a person can get
there.
Jules (23:02):
I do think it's interesting to we've talked
about it.
There was talk about rescindinga nomination and you know, I
was of the opinion that, as hardas it may be because it's such
a landmark, a significantnomination as hard as it may be
to rescind a nomination, or yougo on your behalf and say, as
(23:28):
Carlos Sofía Gascon, I'm goingto rescind that nomination, I
don't feel worthy in thisparticular moment.
I think that there's a lot ofgrowing that needs to be done
and I don't want to sort of havea shadow on the ceremony and
these other brilliant nominees.
If she had taken that approach,I think that would have helped
(23:51):
the movie and it would havehelped the narrative that's
being sort of written as wespeak and I think it would have
turned the tide a little bitit's possible.
Joseph (24:00):
Now I will say it's interesting because your
statement didn't go where Ithought it was going to go,
because when I think rescind anomination, I think the Academy
rescinding the nomination anddisqualifying you.
As opposed to the way thatyou're describing it, I'm sort
of interpreting it as renouncingthe nomination.
So you volunteer voluntarily,you know deciding that I'm going
(24:23):
to disqualify myself.
Jules (24:24):
Yeah, that's what I mean.
Joseph (24:25):
No, it's interesting because you can read it both
ways, right, I mean, well,what's your opinion on?
Should the Academy rescind thenomination?
Jules (24:34):
Honestly, I just don't think that they're in a tough
spot.
So I don't think that theycould ever again, because it's
such a landmark nomination, Idon't think they could ever,
they would ever feel comfortabledoing that.
Um, you know, uh, unless itwere, you know, an extreme case,
which I don't think this is yetfor them, in order to do that
(24:54):
sort of uh, to take that sort ofaction.
Also, I mean, you know,optically, it has to matter to
them how it's going to look forthem to rescind the first trans
actors to be nominated, right?
So I think, like I said,they're in a tough spot.
It would have had to have comefrom Carlos Sofia Gascon.
Joseph (25:13):
I think that's really interesting and I think that's a
very sort of interesting anglethere in terms of renouncing
your own nomination.
I think that's anextraordinarily difficult thing
to do.
I mean, really, this is aperformance and they try to
separate the behavior from theperformance.
I just want to remind everyonethat Mel Gibson was nominated
for directing.
Hacksaw Ridge after everything,now a special envoy to save
(25:34):
Hollywood, but I guess that's asubject for another moment, my
point here being that I thinkthe closest I'll get to is that
maybe it would have beenappropriate for Carla to
renounce the invitation toattend and maybe for the Academy
to rescind the invitation toattend, so sort of that whole
(25:57):
behavioral stipulation, thatsort of Will Smith is sort of
bearing out right now.
Maybe you could have gottenthat involved and rescinded the
invitation to the ceremony.
I think that's as ascomfortable as I can get in
terms of invitations but notnominations right.
Jules (26:16):
I actually think there's still a chance that she won't go
voluntarily, yeah as we've seenher opt out of all these events
.
Maybe she won't do that, though,because, as she was saying in
her cnn interview which isunderstandable she feels the
weight of sort of carrying thislandmark nomination and what it
means to the trans community.
So maybe that might besomething that really propels
(26:39):
her to go there despite all thiscontroversy.
But still, I think it's goingto take a lot of courage to be
there in that ceremony with allthis controversy surrounding you
and you're the target.
You know, I can't imagine thatthat's.
Joseph (26:57):
I can't only fathom the amount of courage that that's
going to take it's veryunfortunate, but I think, in the
situation we're in, it soundslike all I'm hearing is, you
know, from bad to worse in termsof no real positive, great
solutions here.
Just, you know different formsof of losing.
You can go and that's a verydifficult position to worse, in
terms of no real positive, greatsolutions here.
Just, you know different formsof of losing.
You can go, and that's a verydifficult position to be in.
You cannot go and that's also avery difficult position to be
(27:20):
in, a very tragic position to bein either way.
Jules (27:22):
So, very unfortunate situation, I think yeah, no yeah
, I just think it's sad man,it's really sad.
However, I do feel that zoe'saldana has handled this really
gracefully and really well.
She's really well spoken, she'sa very bright a woman.
Uh, she's very smart, she'svery, um, she carries herself
very gracefully, and so everytime that she's been asked um
(27:45):
about this controversy, I feellike she's responded in a very
understandable and I feel likeshe's responded in a very
understandable and empatheticmanner.
So I feel like that has reallyhelped her campaign in a way.
I know people over here are,you know, on social media saying
, oh, who's going to win BestSupporting Actress now?
(28:06):
If anything, I think how wellshe's handled the situation has
made her more of someone thatyou want to vote for An
appealing choice, exactlyBecause that can't be easy
either.
She's sort of bearing the gruntof having to be the face of the
movie now and she's handling itreally beautifully.
Joseph (28:22):
Yeah, um, very, uh, it's very encouraging and it's it's
very lovely to see yeah, the wayshe's handling that and I will
say that is that I'm reallygoing to be curious because my
gut says that the academy is notgoing to give an f that film.
Twitter has gone from dislikingthis movie to hating this movie
and they're really not going tocare at all that social media
(28:44):
does not want this win to happenand frowns upon the 13
nominations for amelia perezuntil again, until the
revelations of you knoweverything that has happened
with Carla Until.
Then I'm sure the Academy waspartying that Emilia Perez got
all those nominations.
Jules (29:00):
Yeah, I think after the Oscar nominations came out and
it was 13 and it was leading andit broke records as being the
foreign film with the mostnominations ever it was going to
win Best Picture handily, andthey were happy about it happy,
and they were more than happywith that.
Um, this changes things notonly because, as we were saying
earlier, it it leaves a really,you know, sour and ugly taste uh
(29:22):
, for you personally, or atleast for some people, but on
top of that now there's asection of the academy that's
going to be worried about opticsyeah, well, we'll find out.
Joseph (29:30):
Right, I got my.
I'm a little skeptical, butwe'll find out right and I think
again we'll see.
Jules (29:35):
We'll start seeing some seeds of that, some breadcrumbs,
in the next few days, yeah sostay tuned yeah um, something
that's happening, uh, reallysoon, in the few and tomorrow,
today actually, depending onwhen you're hearing this podcast
is a critics choice.
Awards, yes, which you know isan organization that I, that we
(29:55):
both feel iffy towards yeah youknow, it's not that we have a
problem with what they stand for, necessarily.
I think we have more of aproblem with how they go about.
Joseph (30:05):
You know, um, their nominees, yeah, nominating films
, I think that there is,unfortunately, a lack of
transparency to the wholeorganization and I think there's
a lack of integrity to thewhole organization.
Right, if you're going to tryto sell to me now that you know?
Amelia Perez, with the criticsthat it got, was nominated for
(30:26):
Best Picture and I'm sure wasthe favorite until a week and a
half ago and is now possiblygoing to lose.
Sure, was the favorite until aweek and a half ago and is now
possibly going to lose.
First of all, I don't know howmuch trust I have that there
wasn't some interference in thevoting when they found out that
amelia perez is possibly not thefavorite to win anymore.
So I have distrust there.
If they want to win that trustover, they have to increase
their transparency.
But it's just the sort of ideawhere, year after year, you're
(30:48):
going to see a top 10 bestpicture that are going to have
some questionable nominees onthere, when a movie that was as
championed as challengerscouldn't get in right so if this
is the critics choice and thecritics choice was clearly
challengers is a better filmthan emilia perez then how come
challengers has such fewernominations?
(31:10):
than emilia perez and is noteven listed in Best Picture.
Jules (31:12):
Right.
So to me there's like a lack ofintegrity there, right?
That's one of our problems thatthey're more focused on
predicting Oscars and being thesort of televised sort of public
version of Gold Derby you know,the nominees will likely be who
the Gold Derby was thinkingwere going to be the nominees as
(31:33):
opposed to organizations likethe SAG Awards and the Golden
Globe Awards and the BAFTAAwards.
They go their way.
They like what they like.
They don't care that you don'tlike it.
They're not necessarily tryingto predict the Oscars.
They just end up having a lotof overlap because they have
influence.
Joseph (31:47):
Right, but then just change your name and call
yourself something else.
That's not the critic's choice.
You know, I'd like to know ifManola Dargis has a ballot, if
she, you know, opts into thisorganization.
Manola Dargis of the New YorkTimes Of the New York Times
Again, because technically Iwill.
I can read a critic's choiceevery year at the end of the
year when they print out theirlist of the 10 best films.
Right, right, and Manola Dargisis going to have the films on
(32:10):
there that she really enjoyedand she's not going to put in
Amelia Perez just because it'sthe favorite twin best picture.
Exactly she's going to leaveout whatever she doesn't feel
needs to be there, exactly Forher own preference.
Jules (32:20):
As an organization they're really invested and
interested in getting as many asmuch crossover as they can with
the Academy.
That's kind of the shtick thatit seems like they're selling.
Joseph (32:33):
They announce it every year, right.
Jules (32:34):
We're important because we have such overlap with the
Academy.
If you get nominated here, it'sa sign that you're on your way
to an Academy Award nominationor an Academy Award win, and
again, what does that matter?
Joseph (32:45):
What does it matter if you have that overlap with the
Academy?
Jules (32:48):
Right, and it just feels like they're so invested overlap
of the Academy, right, and itjust feels like they're so
invested in having that uh, youknow, predicting the Oscars
correctly as much as possiblethat you know that will take
precedent over nominating whatthey might have genuinely felt
was the best film, or the bestfilms, or the best performances
or the best um uh uh filmmakingof the year.
(33:11):
So at least that's the way itfeels to me year round, and I
feel like a lot of that ismotivated by them wanting to
establish themselves as thisformidable presence.
Joseph (33:22):
So the.
Jules (33:23):
Golden Globes have their status, and the SAG Awards have
their status, and the BAFTAAwards have their status, and
they're looking to have theirstatus Right, and so they feel
that the way for them to havethat status is to have the
moniker of well, if you want anaward show that's going to uh,
give you the greatest uhaccuracy as to how the academy
is going to vote, listen to usexactly so that, again, that
(33:46):
that becomes the most importantthing for them as opposed to
well, these are the best filmsof the year from our from our
wide um array array of votersand critics.
And this is what we thought.
And, like the national societyof film critics or the los
angeles film critics or the newyork film critics circle, if you
thought it was great, great ifyou didn't tough, you know we're
(34:08):
not necessarily trying topredict what's going to win best
picture we like what we like.
And I think that's somethingthat you see with the SAG awards
and the globes and the BAFTA.
Again, there is overlap becauseI think those institutions have
inherent influence on theAcademy.
I don't think the criticschoice does.
I think the critics choice isseeking that, but I totally
disagree that it does.
Joseph (34:28):
So there is overlap between those organizations, but
it always feels like thoseawards bodies are more prone to
what they like and spotlightingwhat they like not necessarily
what they think is going to getan oscar nomination right, I, I
agree, and maybe we're being abit hard on them because you
know part of this wholebroadcasting awards deal, it is
(34:48):
a business and it is, you know,advertising dollars and again
trying to, as you said, buildthat sort of reputation and
credibility.
And so again it's a businessjust trying to defend its own
business interests.
We've seen it since thebeginning.
So we've kind of seen everyiteration they've had, whether
it was on E or AMC or Bravo, themultitude of places, the CW
(35:11):
where it's played.
I just I'm not sure that theyhave found the genuine heart of
what they want to do.
It seems like they're trying tojust pick off the Golden Globes
and at one point, when theGolden Globes were canceled you
know back at what feels like along time ago but it was pretty
recent, you know it really feltlike they were going to step
into those shoes and be the newgolden globe.
(35:33):
So nobody go to the goldenglobes anymore because we're
shunning them.
But everyone comes to thecritics choice.
Jules (35:37):
Right.
Joseph (35:37):
At the same time we're getting more sort of again.
These business interests sortof evolve into or interfere with
the whole machine, or trying tobe another cog in the machine.
So isn't there like a whole?
Jules (35:53):
nother one now the Hollywood critics for like TV no
not for TV, I'm not not thecritics choice.
Joseph (35:59):
I'm saying isn't there like an Astro?
Award now from a wholedifferent other organization
that also happened to be critics.
Jules (36:04):
Yeah.
Joseph (36:05):
Um, and now they're, you know, trying to broadcast their
thing as well, and so the wholething, in my opinion, it gets a
little messy, it gets verymessy, If you ask me.
It's much more meaningful andworthwhile to be singled out by
the National Society of FilmCritics, which has the
reputation which has the yearsof doing this and I think are
not serving any interest otherthan expressing their personal
(36:28):
opinion and reflecting what theythought was the best in cinema.
And because of that, becausethey don't sacrifice their
genuine opinion at the expenseof being more popular.
Jules (36:41):
Or at the expense of trying to predict.
Joseph (36:42):
Oscars, or at the expense of trying to predict
Oscars, is why I do think youwill see a potential voter, a
group of voters.
Be curious as to who theyselected.
Jules (36:53):
Right and possibly say, well, I want to see that film
yeah whether it's Los AngelesFilm Critics or the New York.
Film Critics.
Joseph (36:59):
Circle or the National Society of Film Critics Right.
Jules (37:02):
And I also want to say that this might not be true for
every voter.
That's a part of the BroadcastFilm Critics Association.
I'm sure that there are voterswho vote for what they genuinely
thought was the best and for,uh, films and filmmaking that
they thought were the best, thatthey want to spotlight.
But I think they're outnumberedby the amount of people who are
trying to predict the rightoscars, um nominations.
(37:25):
And I also say that you kind offeel this in the room.
Yeah, you know you can feelthere's the reason why at the
award show, the room of thegolden globes and the room yeah,
you know you can feel there'sthe reason why at the award show
, the room of the golden globesand the room of the sag and the
room of the bafta awards feelsdifferent than the room of the
critics choice.
It always kind of feels alittle bit awkward, awkward as
(37:45):
hell, and I think that's because, again, there's this spirit's
this spirit of non-genuineness.
That's happening.
You can't escape that air and Ijust really think they haven't
really solved that.
But I will say and I was justthinking about it right now and
I think this is an interestinganecdote to mention don't think
(38:06):
that every member of the Academyis beyond this way of thinking,
like the Critics' Choice Awards, because you and I in film
school had a professor oh that'sright who was a producer, he
wasn't.
he was a retired, he was kind ofretired but he taught us a
class and he was a member of theAcademy.
(38:28):
A member of the Academy, andI'm pretty sure they've kicked
him out by now.
I don't know if they have orthey haven't, but I know that he
and one of our both of ourclasses he would go out of his
way to mention, you know, hisOscar ballot and who he was
voting for, and when thenominations came out he was very
(38:48):
much bragging about how he gotthe five right.
Yeah, came out, he was verymuch bragging about how he got
the five right.
Yeah, this was uh, you knowwell I won't mention the.
I won't mention the year, yeah,but um he, he was very much
bragging about how he got thefive nominees right for best
picture as a producer.
I think that's the onlycategory that he could vote for
yeah um and like it was.
Joseph (39:10):
Like it was a lottery number.
Jules (39:11):
Exactly that, that it was sort of a code that he cracked.
Joseph (39:14):
Yeah.
Jules (39:14):
You know I got it right and that was the achievement.
The achievement was that I gotthe ballot correct.
Right as opposed to.
This is who I nominated myballot.
It was an honor to be part ofthis membership and it was an
honor to be able to spotlightthe films that I really thought
were the best.
Joseph (39:28):
That meant something to me.
Jules (39:29):
yeah, that meant something to me.
I don't care if one person sawit or two million people saw it,
Right, but it wasn't like thatat all.
It was, and it would surprise.
It certainly surprised me.
You know, you have thisimpression of all Academy voters
as being like that.
It's a more sort of pure.
You know, this is who I thoughtwas the best, who really left
an impact on me, Films that leftan impact on me.
(39:50):
This is what I'm voting for.
But there was a member, atleast you know, in our class who
was very proud about decoding.
Joseph (39:58):
Having gotten it right as opposed to having gotten you
know, a film that I genuinelyenjoyed be nominated in Best
Picture Right.
Jules (40:05):
So I won't say that this is something that only pertains
to the Critics' Choice Awards.
I think it's everywhere, butfor some reason at the Critics'
Choice Awards it just feels likeabundant.
Joseph (40:16):
Yeah, and I will say that is, you're going to tell me
that you've gathered a roomfull of critics every single
year to vote for their best top10 films.
And again, I don't want to pickon any individual critic
because I'm sure they all haveinteresting lists, but you have
to explain to me how, year afteryear, you come up with the same
boring list that the Academy isgoing to end up nominating, you
(40:40):
know, almost to a T, with eightto nine or seven spots.
There's got to be somethingwrong in how you're counting
votes, because if all thosecritics are voting their genuine
hearts, then we should have allkinds of opinions and we should
be seeing a lot of uniquechoices here, and that's just
not the case year after year,right?
So that's our kinds of opinionsand we should be seeing a lot of
unique choices here.
Um, and just that's just notthe case year after year.
Jules (40:54):
Right, so that's our issue and you know um, we're
going to be posting on ourTwitter page.
Yeah, Our predictions ourpredictions, uh, for who we
think is going to win at thecritics choice awards on Friday?
Joseph (41:07):
Um, be sure to, checkelia perez should win a lot
.
Jules (41:09):
And if it does not win, right, that's what I was going
to say.
Uh, but those uh nominees,those predictions, will be on
our twitter page.
Please feel free to check themout.
Um, but you know, in a way, aswe were mentioning earlier in
this podcast, amelia perezshould win this award, because
all this controversy happenedbefore or after the the voting
(41:31):
block was occurring supposedly.
So if emilia paris does not win, that's not going to do
anything to sort of uh, quellour worries, that our suspicions
, our suspicions, our skepticismthat there isn't some sort of
behind the scenes kind of okay,listen, we have to get it as
right as possible.
Em Emilia Perez technically won, but who was number two?
Joseph (41:53):
It's an inside job, because Emilia Perez is
definitely not going to win BestPicture at the Oscars.
Jules (41:56):
You know it's certainly not going to do much to quell
our concerns about that.
If Emilia Perez does win, I'llfeel better about it because
it'll feel more honest to me.
Joseph (42:05):
I'll tell you this and I've talked about it with you
before, but we're not members ofthe Critics' Choice and let's
be upfront about that.
But I always find itinteresting that when you see
Golden Globe predictions, onGold Derby and Oscar predictions
, you're going to see 4,000people participate, 11,000
people participate, 9,000.
(42:26):
When it comes time topredicting the Critics' Choice,
there's a lot less participationand my assumption is that
people are disbarred from bothvoting at the Critics' Choice
Awards and partaking on thatparticular award show on Gold.
Jules (42:42):
Derby On Gold Derby.
Joseph (42:43):
So that there are a lot of Critics' Choice voters that
are also Gold Derby predictors.
Jules (42:48):
Oh, okay, which again?
Joseph (42:50):
I think is just awkward.
Jules (42:51):
Yeah, it's weird to be both.
Seems like a conflict ofinterest.
Yeah, yeah, so we'll see whathappens.
Again, those predictions willbe up there.
Please check them out.
And then we'll get to the othertwo ceremonies that will be
occurring.
That are, you know, we're veryanxious to see who's going to
win those.
Traditionally, these arebiggies.
Yeah, anxious to see who'sgoing to win those.
(43:12):
Traditionally, these arebiggies.
Joseph (43:13):
Yeah, so we'll start with the Director's Guild.
So you had Jacques Ariard therefor Emilia Perez, sean Baker
for Onora, edward Berger forConclave, brady Corbett for the
Brutalist and James Mangold forA Complete Unknown all
first-time nominees.
Important to note here thatwhile voting was going on, it
did show that Edward Bergerwould not be nominated for an
(43:36):
Oscar for Conclave.
Instead, coralie Fargeau wouldbe for the Substance.
The rest overlap of the Academy.
That said, ben Affleck, Ibelieve, did win this award in
2012 for Argo, even without thatOscar nomination.
So, you know, it doesn't meanthat Edward Berger's chances are
completely zero.
Jules (43:54):
Well, you know, you're right.
That's a good point.
I'm not sure.
My gut is that, because he'snot nominated at the Oscars, he
definitely won't win the DGA.
And now that you know again,I'm going to go out on a limb
and say that the Emilia Perezscandal will affect who should
have won this, which I thinkwould have been Jacques Audiard,
(44:15):
who was on pace to win, rightexactly.
And so I think Jacques won'twin and that this will have some
effect on who wins this award.
It won't be Emilia Perez, andI'm going to go with it being
Brady Corbett winning for theBrutalist.
I think it's an interestingchoice, you know.
I think that Brady Corbettwinning for the Brutalist.
Joseph (44:31):
I think it's an interesting choice.
You know, I think that BradyCorbett is possibly a little
young here to win this award.
Jules (44:37):
That's a good point.
Joseph (44:37):
I don't think Edward Berger is going to be able to
pull off a Ben Affleck.
If he did, I would say thatConclave has to be the favorite
to win.
Jules (44:44):
Best Picture.
Joseph (45:02):
I'm going to say that my gut feeling is that the social
media of it all tied with itjust breaking a little too late
for these first awards, that theEmilia Perez pace is still
going to be there for thesecouple of awards.
So I do think Jacques Audillardwill end up winning here.
After this weekend, what we'regoing to see is a lot of other
guilds and organizations takethe opportunity to present
(45:22):
different types of winners tothe voting branch or the voting
members so they can sort of geta feel to oh, what's it like
when a complete unknown winssomething, or when the Brutalist
wins the DGA, as you said, orwhen a Nora wins the WGA, and
that's going to help them sortof cement who they're going to
vote for at the end.
Because, again, I do think theAmelia Perez fiasco is going to
have an effect at the AcademyAwards.
So if they see a bunch ofdifferent films, pick up
different little types of awards, they may start to give it to
(45:46):
whoever gave the best speech orthe most meaningful speech or
generated the most enthusiasmonline or with other outlets.
I think that that may be afactor, but I think these couple
of awards are a little tooearly.
So I do think that emilia perezwill win at the dga, if I'm
wrong, if I'm wrong.
Jules (46:04):
That's what I say.
My spoiler is going to be, asyou were saying jacques
ardillard for emilia perez, yeah, okay well, so I'm jacques
ardillard, I think's still onpace and this came out too late.
Joseph (46:13):
This fiasco, and then, if I'm wrong, the movie that I'm
thinking is in the bestposition to pick up steam
towards an eventual Oscar winfor best picture.
In my mind is a Nora, and so Ithink Brady Corbett is an
excellent choice, and the wholebest division of it all may end
up winning out here, but I thinkthe years that Sean Baker has
(46:36):
put in and just the fact thatthat film appeals to everyone
appeals to international voters,festival voters, art house
voters, mainstream voters,pretty women people, whatever.
I do think that it has almosteverything it needs.
So if Amelia Perez is reallystruggling here, I would think
that a has almost everything itneeds.
So if Amelia Perez is reallystruggling here, I would think
that Onora would pick it up.
Jules (46:55):
That's a really good point and a really good spoiler
For the Producers Guild Awards.
The nominees mimicked theOscars close about 80%, if I'm
not mistaken Right.
Joseph (47:08):
And the nominees were Onora the Boudalist, a Complete
Unknown Conclave Dune, part 2,.
Emilia Perez A Real Pain,september 5,.
The Substance and Wicked.
Jules (47:26):
Right, and for the exact same reasons that you just said
for Onora, I believe Onora willbe winning the Producers Guild
Award, even though my spoilerwould probably still be Emilia
Paris slash Possibly Wicked asbeing the alternative to Emilia
Paris.
But right now my gut tells methat, again, the controversy has
(47:49):
had an effect already and thatthe winner for the producers
guild awards will be anora Ithink it's a very interesting
choice.
Joseph (47:57):
Um, I've thought about it myself.
I'm still gonna say that emiliaperez is on pace to win here
and that this uh fiasco againhasn't completely derailed it
here.
It's gonna need a little bitmore time for us to see that
effect.
So I think amelia perez willwin here at the pga.
If I had to choose a spoiler,you know, I think there's a very
(48:19):
good argument for wicked, butwhen you think that top gun
maverick and barbie weren't ableto capitalize here, I do have
some hesitation.
So instead of going for wicked,I think I'm gonna sort of flip
with you.
We're flip-flopping here rightbut I'm gonna say that the best
spoiler is the brutalist right,which I think again.
There's so much movie there forso little money that I think
(48:41):
producers are going to be alittle bit enthralled by that
that's a good point.
Jules (48:44):
That's a good point.
Joseph (48:44):
So I'm gonna go, amelia perez still on pace to win the
brutalist as the spoiler okay,um.
Jules (48:50):
Well, that was our rundown of several uh topics and
upcoming uh awards, right, andwe'll be seeing what happens.
We'll be having our sort ofreport on what's been occurring,
um, over the last several daysin our next podcast, right,
which should be up later in theweek next week yeah and until
(49:11):
and until then.
This is Jules and I'm Joseph,and it's been a pleasure.
The music on this episodeentitled Cool Cats was
graciously provided by KevinMacLeod and incompetechcom,
licensed under Creative Commonsby Attribution 3.0.
(49:31):
Http//creativecommonsorg.
Licenses by 3.0.
Joseph (49:47):
Disclaimer the Academy Anonymous podcast is in no way
affiliated or endorsed by theAcademy of Motion Picture Arts
and Sciences.
hey, welcome back to academy, anonymous, I'm jules
and I'm joseph and on thisepisode we're going to tackle a
few um topics.
We're going to start with a fewwords on the Critics' Choice
Awards organization.
We kind of have a kind of aweird relationship to them.
Joseph (00:33):
Right.
Jules (00:33):
You know, we are not you know fully over the moon with
that organization for severalreasons.
We'll go into it.
They're a bit odd.
And we'll also have a few wordson the controversy that has
surrounded Emilia Perez, sincethe tweets have come out about
Carlos Sofia Gascon, and howthat's going to affect or how we
see it affecting, emilia Perezas a whole on Oscar night, its
(00:57):
awards chances.
And then we'll do a briefprediction for the upcoming
Director's Guild Awards and theProducer's Guild Awards.
Joseph (01:06):
On paper, this is supposed to be a pretty big
weekend.
We have Critics' Choice winners, director's Guild Award winners
and Producer's Guild Awardwinners.
That's on paper, but because ofeverything that's going on with
the Emilia Perez Carlos SofiaGascon sort of campaign emilia
(01:28):
perez carlos sofia gascon sortof campaign we may end up seeing
that these award shows andthese awards bodies are maybe a
little bit late to the party andthey're not going to be fully
reflective.
Yeah, they may lag behind interms of whatever overall effect
.
Jules (01:39):
Um that sort of headline stealing news about emilia perez
is going to have at the Oscarsthey might not be so good at
forecasting what's going tohappen at the Academy because
the voting window for several ofthose awards were happening,
For example, the Critics' Choice.
The voting window was happeningprior to the Emilia Perez
(01:59):
scandal.
It got pushed back so muchbecause of the LA fires and
certainly the scandal wasoccurring while the voting was
happening during the producersguild awards and the directors
guild.
But we still don't know howmany of the members who ended up
voting, how many of them, wereaware of the controversy, which
seems like it had roots, youknow, very online.
(02:21):
You know that's sort of whereit originated.
How many of them you know wereon social media?
You know that's sort of whereit originated.
How many of them you know werefully aware of the controversy?
And even if they were aware,it's still a question mark how
voters at large, throughout thisentire industry, are going to
react.
Joseph (02:38):
Is that going to have an effect or not is going to be
the large question, and thesemay not be the best award shows
to demonstrate that.
Something like the BAFTA iscertainly going to have a voting
window where this is right,smack in the middle, and that
may be more significant there interms of reading, where the
mindset of the voters is at.
Jules (02:59):
Exactly, and I think that we'll know how much this
controversy has sort ofpenetrated this awards bubble if
, for example, amelia Perezshould have been the favorite to
win the DGA and the PGA and theCritics Choice and even beyond,
possibly even likely the SAGAwards.
(03:21):
So I think this weekend, ifAmelia Perez gets completely
snubbed, then I think that's apretty good indication that the
controversy has officiallypenetrated the bubble.
Joseph (03:32):
And goodbye Amelia Perez , to winning Best Picture or
hello, amelia Perez, tolaunching a new campaign in
terms of, you know, rehabbingits image.
I mean, it has enough time.
It has enough time to bounceback.
Jules (03:46):
That's all I'm saying I don't know, because I want to
remind everyone that the oscarsare march 2nd, but the voting
window is february 11 tofebruary 18 so they do have time
to launch an all-out strike totry to turn this narrative
around I mean, I I hear whatyou're saying and I think it's
certainly possible, but I thinkmy gut is that the window's
(04:09):
still too small and I think thatthey're already trying to pivot
by sort of expunging CarlosOvea Gascon from the campaign,
as we saw over the last few daysin several articles, variety
for example.
So I think that's theirsolution just pretend Carlos
Ovea Gascon is not Emilia Pariswhen she really is, and focus
(04:32):
more on Zoe and the movie andJacques and the awards it's won
and the nominations it's had.
So they're already trying that.
I think it's too little of awindow.
I think it certainly doesn'thelp that the film is called
Emilia Perez and the actressplaying Emilia Perez is Carlos
Sofia Gascon.
I think that really hurts Frommy experience.
Joseph (04:52):
what I would say to that is that it's hard not to sort
of it's synonymous now.
Yeah.
Jules (04:59):
Emilia Perez is Carlos Sofia Gascon.
Carlos Sofia Gascon is thiscontroversy?
Joseph (05:03):
The campaign should not be to eliminate Carla Sofia
Gascon from the center of thefilm.
The campaign should be to rehabher from the position of the
center.
So I think that they're makinga mistake by adopting the
strategy of okay, well, let'sjust pretend she doesn't exist
and we'll ice her out of all theceremonies, of all the campaign
(05:23):
stops, of all the promotion.
We'll ice her out of all theceremonies of all the campaign
stops, of all the promotion,will ice her out.
I think that's the wrongapproach.
I think the right approach, theapproach that could save some
face, is to sort of gatheraround her and sort of support
the idea of separating theperson now from the person, then
the person from you know, theperson from the statements.
Jules (05:43):
Right.
I think they're really having ahard time with that.
You know, as we saw in thosearticles, the camp, the Netflix
camp, the award at least thecamp that's concentrated on the
awards push is really separatingitself from Carlos Sofia Gascon
, just sort of having to fendfor herself, doing these
unauthorized interviews, and thesort of schism between the two
(06:05):
just feels like it's growing bythe hour.
So I don't know if there'senough time to sort of reverse
course on that.
Maybe you're right.
I think it would have been asmarter call to do that.
Let's own it, let's apologize,let's move forward, let's take
accountability.
I think that's an issue that alot of people have had with her
(06:25):
and her apologies and thiscontroversy.
They don't feel that there'senough accountability, uh, that
there's maybe possibly juststill too many excuses, um, just
still not enough accountability.
And maybe if they together hadsort of assessed that the best
thing would be to take fullaccountability and apologize
earnestly and move forward, thatcould have really helped a lot.
(06:49):
But I think carla sofia gasconas a person, I think she's
someone who was very interestedin defending herself and I don't
think that that has helped thiscontroversy.
I think it just made it worse.
Joseph (07:01):
I I wonder if and again, I don't think Netflix has ever
been the best campaigner.
I think the number of bestpicture trophies that they've
won, which is zero, demonstratesthat, even when they're
favorites.
But I do wonder if this is alittle bit of karma for having
category fraud with Zoe Zaldana.
And had you built the filmaround two leads, or around
(07:24):
Zaldana as the lead, maybe youwould be in a better place right
now.
That's a good point.
Jules (07:29):
I think that's a really good point.
I I think that if Carlos SofiaGascon had gone supporting
though, she would have been thefavorite to win that category
right and she would still be ina position of, well, who's going
to win supporting actress now,whereas there's a lot of options
in actress, they didn't have togo for color sofia gus gone.
It seems like that's definitelynot going to happen.
If there's one award thatamelia paris won't be winning on
(07:51):
an oscar night, it will be bestactors.
Um, so I think that's aninteresting uh point, but I'm
not really sure if it would havechanged much it would have
changed the issue of having toice out your, your center of
your film you're, it's easier toice out your supporting player
than it is to ice out the leadof your film and the lead actor
(08:12):
or actress nominee for your film.
Joseph (08:13):
It's more noticeable.
Jules (08:14):
Yeah, it's more noticeable and so, continuing on
this controversy since westarted talking about it, um,
it's, it's a big question markhow voters are going to react.
Joseph (08:24):
I think we're going to get a taste of what the industry
, uh, is feeling this weekend,but, like you mentioned earlier,
uh, as we started, it might bea faulty taste yeah, might be
lagging it might be that emiliaparis does really well and that
still doesn't prove that it'sgoing to do well on austral
night, but it is an opportunityto start the campaign, to
(08:45):
relaunch the campaign into sortof uh, you know, uh a campaign
where they sort of rehabilitatethe image of amelia perez.
Possibly winning nothing isgoing to help amelia perez sort
of get through this hurdle, thengetting onto a podium and
having to make a speech, and ifyou can make the right speech,
then I think you're set I wonderif that's something that carlos
(09:07):
sofia gascon could have done.
Jules (09:09):
slash should have done.
You know, I know that therewere several events this past
week and they're going to bemore that she's skipping.
I know that I just heard today,I believe, that she's skipping
the goya awards and initially Ithink she was going to go.
I think, as scary as it mightbe for a person, for any person,
in the midst of a controversy,to win an award and have to be
(09:33):
center stage, at the spotlightand give a speech, it's an
opportunity.
It's an opportunity that youcan take to really, as you said,
rewrite this narrative that iscurrently occurring.
And so I'm not sure that sheand her personal camp have taken
enough stock of the opportunitythey can have in these award
shows to really confront andaddress what's going on, address
(09:56):
the errors that there may havebeen when she made her apologies
and just turn the page.
And so the opposite ishappening Everyone's sort of
digging in their heels and beingvery firmly in their side of
the argument and the schism, andso nothing is happening.
It's just getting worse, Iagree.
Joseph (10:18):
And I will say that as we talk about it, I think it's
important to bring up that.
Yes, she's being judged forthese statements and these
tweets, and we've seen over thecourse of the campaign that
she's demonstrated herself to bea very steadfast individual, an
individual that you know willdefend her supporters and defend
(10:40):
you know her friends and herfamily and her colleagues and
the artists that she made thefilm with almost to a fault, and
you know her friends and herfamily and her colleagues and
the artists that she made thefilm with almost to a fault, and
you know that's a good thingand a bad thing.
You know that's a virtue and aflaw.
Right, unfortunately, you'recaught in this awkward position
right now, but I don't thinkthat, you know, anyone is beyond
sympathizing with that.
Yeah, yeah.
(11:00):
But I'll also say this is thatyou and I and you and I have
talked about it is that rightnow, to a certain degree, she's
sort of the scapegoat for?
what has been sort of thissocial media online backlash to
this film that's been buildingup, that's been building up and
that you know will get you,after you, get 13 academy award
nominations.
(11:21):
If you're a voter and you thinkyou're going to hand someone an
academy award nomination andnot inspire backlash, then I
think you're not payingattention, and so I really do
think that I I credit theacademy for some of this issue,
because as an academy member,you have to bring that sort of,
I think, judiciousness to whatyou're doing, and I don't think
(11:41):
that this is a film that needed13 nominations.
I think that had this film tiedsomething like the Brutalist
which seemed appropriate orConclave, it would not be
bearing the grunt of thisbacklash.
Jules (11:55):
Right, I do hear what you're saying.
However, I will say that theproblematic nature of the film,
legitimate criticisms thatpeople have had about the film,
the problematic nature of thefilm, legitimate criticisms that
people have had about the film,you know that's not always the
case with the quote-unquote mostnominated film.
Obviously.
Last year you had oppenheimermost nominated film, um, and it
won um obviously, but you knowit wasn't really courting this
(12:19):
amount of criticism and judgmentand discussion and debate, um,
that amelia paris is, becauseamelia paris is a more.
It's a film that's obviouslymore controversial in terms of
how it was made and, uh, thetopics it's trying to tackle and
how sensitive it was to theworld that it's exploring and so
(12:41):
, um, and the themes that it'sexploring, and and so you're
just not going to have thatevery year with the most
nominated film and every yearthere is a quote-unquote most
nominated film.
Joseph (12:51):
Right, it's not a given, but I will say there is no
speedier path to being hated,possibly, than there is being
celebrated, right.
So when you have any sort ofindividual or film or piece of
art that is celebrated to such adegree, it gets easy to pick on
(13:14):
them right, and it gets easy tosort of focus in on them and to
start ripping them apart fortheir flaws instead of building
them up for their virtues.
Um, I think that's always beena factor.
You're right, it's not for, youknow, the most nominated film,
but in this case it was alreadya, as you said, controversial
situation and the academy sortof turning a blind eye to all
(13:37):
those sort of holes in the movieand holes in the production has
only exacerbated the responseof social media.
Now, as you said, it's debatablewhether the Academy gives an F
about any take that social mediaor film Twitter or Oscar
Twitter has about Emilia Perez.
It's really debatable.
Jules (13:56):
Now, what's not debatable is that when the star of your
film sort of breaks down on CNNthat they're going to be able to
avoid that completely negativefeelings.
(14:17):
You know, when you have a tweettalking about Hitler and you
have uh tweets, you know theSelena Gomez tweet, you know the
, you know, was particularlypiercing, I thought, because
they worked together, um, evenif it was made before they
worked together.
Joseph (14:31):
Well, didn't she discredit it?
I thought that she discreditedthat one as that, I guess on the
CNN interview she did.
Jules (14:35):
It's really hard to know what is real, what is not.
Joseph (14:38):
That's part of the problem, yeah.
Jules (14:40):
Yeah, exactly, no-transcript.
Joseph (14:59):
Which is what social media is designed for.
It's designed for your mostreckless, insensitive.
Take.
Whatever brain fart you have atthat minute, just tweet it.
That's the design of Twitter.
I'm just saying let's attackthe system as well.
Jules (15:11):
Right.
Well, I don't think everyperson on social media is that
way, but certainly I thinksocial media sort of begets a
lot of people's worst impulses.
Um, and I think that's you'reright, that's a, that's a that's
a really tragic thing about theentire social media apparatus.
Um, but you know, you can'thelp but see those tweets and,
you know, feel a certain type ofnegative way.
(15:34):
Um, so I understand the peoplewho are upset and I understand
the people who are frustratedand disappointed.
Joseph (15:40):
I understand.
Jules (15:40):
Especially since you know this was an iconic.
This was a landmark nomination.
It should have been celebratory.
You know 100% of the way, so Itotally understand the sincere
disappointment and frustrationwith what's happened.
Joseph (15:56):
I think the landmark nature, though, of the
achievement might also be one ofthe issues here, in the sense
that I don't doubt that thereare some people throwing wood on
the fire to bring down thefirst trans nominee.
I haven't read everything, butI'm sure they're out there.
I mean, it is Twitter.
But I'll also say you know,that piece of history is so
meaningful to people, even onsocial media, that the degree to
(16:21):
which you have to sort of carryyourself is tough.
It's not easy.
Jules (16:26):
Yeah, and, and, and.
I think there's somethingreally tragic about this whole
thing.
You know, uh, it's, it's sotragic to have, you know,
certainly, uh, uh, like you were, like we were saying, a
landmark nomination, sort ofsort of fizzle into this
catastrophe.
It's something that it's goingto be hard to ever erase from
(16:48):
this nomination Right.
And so the first is also one ofthe most chaotic, problematic,
tragic, you know sort of thingsthat have happened to the
Academy with regards to actorsbeing nominated.
Joseph (17:06):
I absolutely agree.
And just to build on that also,you know, because again we
should be fair and not justattack the individual, attack
the campaign, attack theproducers.
And I think again, if you havean issue with that film it's
every bit as much as jacquesarriard's fault as it is carla's
, possibly more.
But I will say this is that wehad a spectacular year for best
(17:27):
actress, with wonderful films,wonderful contenders, wonderful
performances, wonderful roles.
But sometimes that brings outthe worst in people yeah and in
film, twitter.
And in oscar, twitter and, inyou know, the movie, sort of
public sphere of people sharingtheir opinions, which is which
is great.
Sometimes it can get toxic yeah,and I think stan twitter, stan
(17:49):
twitter and so like when youhave, you know, fernando torres
fans attacking I don't knowcarla sofia fans, and then carla
sofia fans and fernanda torres,fernanda torres fans, not just,
you know, arguing against eachother, but then they leak into
the actual performer or theartist and then they're having
to fight things that are coming,things that are being drudged
(18:11):
up from the past.
It can't be easy yeah, you knowdefinitely um, it would have
been interesting to see all thiscome out when she was cast,
when the movie premiered at con,but it really only comes out
once.
That oscar nomination, you know, comes out right, right.
So I do think that'sunfortunate.
There's a certain toxicity tothe whole system that, you know,
we're certainly a part of.
(18:31):
We comment on this, but youknow you have to sort of check
that behavior.
Yeah, um, as you're sort ofengaging in this, because
there's a productive, beneficial, rewarding way to interact with
it, that doesn't have to, youknow, result in people icing
each other out and beingdisinvited and, you know,
reporting the truth.
There's nothing wrong withreporting the truth, I'm all for
(18:51):
that.
Let's also, you know, give us aspace to sort of absorb that.
You know, let it marinate intoour consciousness, you know, let
it marinate into our emotions,and then come up with an
adequate response and not justsort of, you know, want to throw
this person away all of asudden.
You know.
Jules (19:08):
But I also think I completely agree with you, but I
also think that, again,accountability is really
important.
You know when you mess up andyou make mistakes and you do
things that you shouldn't havedone, even if it was an earlier
version of yourself that is moreflawed, more problematic, less
enlightened.
You know, if you made thosemistakes, you need to own up to
(19:30):
it.
You need to, you know, takeaccountability and have
sincerity with theaccountability that you're
taking.
And I think if she hadapproached it with more
sincerity and more passion withregard to her um, apologetic
tone, uh, sentiment, rather, um,I think that things would have
(19:52):
been different.
You know, I really feel thatthere was.
You know, I know it looks likewe were at the edge of a cliff
and there was no saving it, butI can't help but feel that if
certain steps had been taken,certain approaches had been
different.
Joseph (20:09):
You're trying to really understand where the criticisms
are coming from, and trying totake accountability it doesn't
really serve you or anyone tosort of qualify that apology and
(20:30):
sort of you know first, state,you know the you know, emphasize
the context and where you'recoming from and the separation.
Sometimes, as you say, justhave to own the apology um, the
same time, there's the tragedyof it.
As we had mentioned before,that's just a character flaw
right, because I feel like.
It's the same individual we'veseen, and people were
(20:50):
championing and celebrating, youknow, almost a year ago when
Khan came out right.
It's just a person who is very,again, very steadfast and very,
dare I say, stubborn, willful,willful even in her loyalty and
even when it comes to owning it,she won't abandon herself and
(21:10):
abandon.
You know what was in her mindand her heart as she wrote those
things, or you knowunderstanding where her mind and
her heart is now Again.
It's just character flaw andit's unfortunate.
That's a little bit of thetragedy, right.
Jules (21:24):
Right, it is character flaw, but, as we've mentioned
several times, you know,accountability is just so
important and when somethinglike this comes out and I think
a person is forced to confrontyou know, really problematic,
really seriously problematic anddangerous and ugly way of uh
(21:47):
looking at things that arereally significant and important
, um, I think you know a personhas to be open and willing to do
that work, to face that, toconfront that and to want to
rise above that and to own it,as we've been saying, and try to
grow from it.
Joseph (22:08):
I completely agree.
And you know, even if it ischaracter flaws sometimes,
oftentimes an individual, anyindividual, will be pushed at a
moment in this world wherethey're going to have to meet
the moment and rise above thoseflaws.
And not everyone can meet thatmoment, but that's the challenge
(22:29):
of when that arises in anyone'slife and you know, I'm not sure
that she's met the moment onthis occasion.
Right, Dare I say.
You know, I'm reminded of thewhole Lydia Tarr, of it all
right.
But you know, if there'sanything we learned from that
movie, it's that idea again.
You don't have to be reduced toyour flaws, but there will come
(22:50):
a moment where you have to sortof again.
As we said, meet the moment andmeet the moment, for you know
what it means for everyone else.
Jules (22:57):
Yeah.
Joseph (22:58):
And it's only a question whether you as a person can get
there.
Jules (23:02):
I do think it's interesting to we've talked
about it.
There was talk about rescindinga nomination and you know, I
was of the opinion that, as hardas it may be because it's such
a landmark, a significantnomination as hard as it may be
to rescind a nomination, or yougo on your behalf and say, as
(23:28):
Carlos Sofía Gascon, I'm goingto rescind that nomination, I
don't feel worthy in thisparticular moment.
I think that there's a lot ofgrowing that needs to be done
and I don't want to sort of havea shadow on the ceremony and
these other brilliant nominees.
If she had taken that approach,I think that would have helped
(23:51):
the movie and it would havehelped the narrative that's
being sort of written as wespeak and I think it would have
turned the tide a little bitit's possible.
Joseph (24:00):
Now I will say it's interesting because your
statement didn't go where Ithought it was going to go,
because when I think rescind anomination, I think the Academy
rescinding the nomination anddisqualifying you.
As opposed to the way thatyou're describing it, I'm sort
of interpreting it as renouncingthe nomination.
So you volunteer voluntarily,you know deciding that I'm going
(24:23):
to disqualify myself.
Jules (24:24):
Yeah, that's what I mean.
Joseph (24:25):
No, it's interesting because you can read it both
ways, right, I mean, well,what's your opinion on?
Should the Academy rescind thenomination?
Jules (24:34):
Honestly, I just don't think that they're in a tough
spot.
So I don't think that theycould ever again, because it's
such a landmark nomination, Idon't think they could ever,
they would ever feel comfortabledoing that.
Um, you know, uh, unless itwere, you know, an extreme case,
which I don't think this is yetfor them, in order to do that
(24:54):
sort of uh, to take that sort ofaction.
Also, I mean, you know,optically, it has to matter to
them how it's going to look forthem to rescind the first trans
actors to be nominated, right?
So I think, like I said,they're in a tough spot.
It would have had to have comefrom Carlos Sofia Gascon.
Joseph (25:13):
I think that's really interesting and I think that's a
very sort of interesting anglethere in terms of renouncing
your own nomination.
I think that's anextraordinarily difficult thing
to do.
I mean, really, this is aperformance and they try to
separate the behavior from theperformance.
I just want to remind everyonethat Mel Gibson was nominated
for directing.
Hacksaw Ridge after everything,now a special envoy to save
(25:34):
Hollywood, but I guess that's asubject for another moment, my
point here being that I thinkthe closest I'll get to is that
maybe it would have beenappropriate for Carla to
renounce the invitation toattend and maybe for the Academy
to rescind the invitation toattend, so sort of that whole
(25:57):
behavioral stipulation, thatsort of Will Smith is sort of
bearing out right now.
Maybe you could have gottenthat involved and rescinded the
invitation to the ceremony.
I think that's as ascomfortable as I can get in
terms of invitations but notnominations right.
Jules (26:16):
I actually think there's still a chance that she won't go
voluntarily, yeah as we've seenher opt out of all these events
.
Maybe she won't do that, though,because, as she was saying in
her cnn interview which isunderstandable she feels the
weight of sort of carrying thislandmark nomination and what it
means to the trans community.
So maybe that might besomething that really propels
(26:39):
her to go there despite all thiscontroversy.
But still, I think it's goingto take a lot of courage to be
there in that ceremony with allthis controversy surrounding you
and you're the target.
You know, I can't imagine thatthat's.
Joseph (26:57):
I can't only fathom the amount of courage that that's
going to take it's veryunfortunate, but I think, in the
situation we're in, it soundslike all I'm hearing is, you
know, from bad to worse in termsof no real positive, great
solutions here.
Just, you know different formsof of losing.
You can go and that's a verydifficult position to worse, in
terms of no real positive, greatsolutions here.
Just, you know different formsof of losing.
You can go, and that's a verydifficult position to be in.
You cannot go and that's also avery difficult position to be
(27:20):
in, a very tragic position to bein either way.
Jules (27:22):
So, very unfortunate situation, I think yeah, no yeah
, I just think it's sad man,it's really sad.
However, I do feel that zoe'saldana has handled this really
gracefully and really well.
She's really well spoken, she'sa very bright a woman.
Uh, she's very smart, she'svery, um, she carries herself
very gracefully, and so everytime that she's been asked um
(27:45):
about this controversy, I feellike she's responded in a very
understandable and I feel likeshe's responded in a very
understandable and empatheticmanner.
So I feel like that has reallyhelped her campaign in a way.
I know people over here are,you know, on social media saying
, oh, who's going to win BestSupporting Actress now?
(28:06):
If anything, I think how wellshe's handled the situation has
made her more of someone thatyou want to vote for An
appealing choice, exactlyBecause that can't be easy
either.
She's sort of bearing the gruntof having to be the face of the
movie now and she's handling itreally beautifully.
Joseph (28:22):
Yeah, um, very, uh, it's very encouraging and it's it's
very lovely to see yeah, the wayshe's handling that and I will
say that is that I'm reallygoing to be curious because my
gut says that the academy is notgoing to give an f that film.
Twitter has gone from dislikingthis movie to hating this movie
and they're really not going tocare at all that social media
(28:44):
does not want this win to happenand frowns upon the 13
nominations for amelia perezuntil again, until the
revelations of you knoweverything that has happened
with Carla Until.
Then I'm sure the Academy waspartying that Emilia Perez got
all those nominations.
Jules (29:00):
Yeah, I think after the Oscar nominations came out and
it was 13 and it was leading andit broke records as being the
foreign film with the mostnominations ever it was going to
win Best Picture handily, andthey were happy about it happy,
and they were more than happywith that.
Um, this changes things notonly because, as we were saying
earlier, it it leaves a really,you know, sour and ugly taste uh
(29:22):
, for you personally, or atleast for some people, but on
top of that now there's asection of the academy that's
going to be worried about opticsyeah, well, we'll find out.
Joseph (29:30):
Right, I got my.
I'm a little skeptical, butwe'll find out right and I think
again we'll see.
Jules (29:35):
We'll start seeing some seeds of that, some breadcrumbs,
in the next few days, yeah sostay tuned yeah um, something
that's happening, uh, reallysoon, in the few and tomorrow,
today actually, depending onwhen you're hearing this podcast
is a critics choice.
Awards, yes, which you know isan organization that I, that we
(29:55):
both feel iffy towards yeah youknow, it's not that we have a
problem with what they stand for, necessarily.
I think we have more of aproblem with how they go about.
Joseph (30:05):
You know, um, their nominees, yeah, nominating films
, I think that there is,unfortunately, a lack of
transparency to the wholeorganization and I think there's
a lack of integrity to thewhole organization.
Right, if you're going to tryto sell to me now that you know?
Amelia Perez, with the criticsthat it got, was nominated for
(30:26):
Best Picture and I'm sure wasthe favorite until a week and a
half ago and is now possiblygoing to lose.
Sure, was the favorite until aweek and a half ago and is now
possibly going to lose.
First of all, I don't know howmuch trust I have that there
wasn't some interference in thevoting when they found out that
amelia perez is possibly not thefavorite to win anymore.
So I have distrust there.
If they want to win that trustover, they have to increase
their transparency.
But it's just the sort of ideawhere, year after year, you're
(30:48):
going to see a top 10 bestpicture that are going to have
some questionable nominees onthere, when a movie that was as
championed as challengerscouldn't get in right so if this
is the critics choice and thecritics choice was clearly
challengers is a better filmthan emilia perez then how come
challengers has such fewernominations?
(31:10):
than emilia perez and is noteven listed in Best Picture.
Jules (31:12):
Right.
So to me there's like a lack ofintegrity there, right?
That's one of our problems thatthey're more focused on
predicting Oscars and being thesort of televised sort of public
version of Gold Derby you know,the nominees will likely be who
the Gold Derby was thinkingwere going to be the nominees as
(31:33):
opposed to organizations likethe SAG Awards and the Golden
Globe Awards and the BAFTAAwards.
They go their way.
They like what they like.
They don't care that you don'tlike it.
They're not necessarily tryingto predict the Oscars.
They just end up having a lotof overlap because they have
influence.
Joseph (31:47):
Right, but then just change your name and call
yourself something else.
That's not the critic's choice.
You know, I'd like to know ifManola Dargis has a ballot, if
she, you know, opts into thisorganization.
Manola Dargis of the New YorkTimes Of the New York Times
Again, because technically Iwill.
I can read a critic's choiceevery year at the end of the
year when they print out theirlist of the 10 best films.
Right, right, and Manola Dargisis going to have the films on
(32:10):
there that she really enjoyedand she's not going to put in
Amelia Perez just because it'sthe favorite twin best picture.
Exactly she's going to leaveout whatever she doesn't feel
needs to be there, exactly Forher own preference.
Jules (32:20):
As an organization they're really invested and
interested in getting as many asmuch crossover as they can with
the Academy.
That's kind of the shtick thatit seems like they're selling.
Joseph (32:33):
They announce it every year, right.
Jules (32:34):
We're important because we have such overlap with the
Academy.
If you get nominated here, it'sa sign that you're on your way
to an Academy Award nominationor an Academy Award win, and
again, what does that matter?
Joseph (32:45):
What does it matter if you have that overlap with the
Academy?
Jules (32:48):
Right, and it just feels like they're so invested overlap
of the Academy, right, and itjust feels like they're so
invested in having that uh, youknow, predicting the Oscars
correctly as much as possiblethat you know that will take
precedent over nominating whatthey might have genuinely felt
was the best film, or the bestfilms, or the best performances
or the best um uh uh filmmakingof the year.
(33:11):
So at least that's the way itfeels to me year round, and I
feel like a lot of that ismotivated by them wanting to
establish themselves as thisformidable presence.
Joseph (33:22):
So the.
Jules (33:23):
Golden Globes have their status, and the SAG Awards have
their status, and the BAFTAAwards have their status, and
they're looking to have theirstatus Right, and so they feel
that the way for them to havethat status is to have the
moniker of well, if you want anaward show that's going to uh,
give you the greatest uhaccuracy as to how the academy
is going to vote, listen to usexactly so that, again, that
(33:46):
that becomes the most importantthing for them as opposed to
well, these are the best filmsof the year from our from our
wide um array array of votersand critics.
And this is what we thought.
And, like the national societyof film critics or the los
angeles film critics or the newyork film critics circle, if you
thought it was great, great ifyou didn't tough, you know we're
(34:08):
not necessarily trying topredict what's going to win best
picture we like what we like.
And I think that's somethingthat you see with the SAG awards
and the globes and the BAFTA.
Again, there is overlap becauseI think those institutions have
inherent influence on theAcademy.
I don't think the criticschoice does.
I think the critics choice isseeking that, but I totally
disagree that it does.
Joseph (34:28):
So there is overlap between those organizations, but
it always feels like thoseawards bodies are more prone to
what they like and spotlightingwhat they like not necessarily
what they think is going to getan oscar nomination right, I, I
agree, and maybe we're being abit hard on them because you
know part of this wholebroadcasting awards deal, it is
(34:48):
a business and it is, you know,advertising dollars and again
trying to, as you said, buildthat sort of reputation and
credibility.
And so again it's a businessjust trying to defend its own
business interests.
We've seen it since thebeginning.
So we've kind of seen everyiteration they've had, whether
it was on E or AMC or Bravo, themultitude of places, the CW
(35:11):
where it's played.
I just I'm not sure that theyhave found the genuine heart of
what they want to do.
It seems like they're trying tojust pick off the Golden Globes
and at one point, when theGolden Globes were canceled you
know back at what feels like along time ago but it was pretty
recent, you know it really feltlike they were going to step
into those shoes and be the newgolden globe.
(35:33):
So nobody go to the goldenglobes anymore because we're
shunning them.
But everyone comes to thecritics choice.
Jules (35:37):
Right.
Joseph (35:37):
At the same time we're getting more sort of again.
These business interests sortof evolve into or interfere with
the whole machine, or trying tobe another cog in the machine.
So isn't there like a whole?
Jules (35:53):
nother one now the Hollywood critics for like TV no
not for TV, I'm not not thecritics choice.
Joseph (35:59):
I'm saying isn't there like an Astro?
Award now from a wholedifferent other organization
that also happened to be critics.
Jules (36:04):
Yeah.
Joseph (36:05):
Um, and now they're, you know, trying to broadcast their
thing as well, and so the wholething, in my opinion, it gets a
little messy, it gets verymessy, If you ask me.
It's much more meaningful andworthwhile to be singled out by
the National Society of FilmCritics, which has the
reputation which has the yearsof doing this and I think are
not serving any interest otherthan expressing their personal
(36:28):
opinion and reflecting what theythought was the best in cinema.
And because of that, becausethey don't sacrifice their
genuine opinion at the expenseof being more popular.
Jules (36:41):
Or at the expense of trying to predict.
Joseph (36:42):
Oscars, or at the expense of trying to predict
Oscars, is why I do think youwill see a potential voter, a
group of voters.
Be curious as to who theyselected.
Jules (36:53):
Right and possibly say, well, I want to see that film
yeah whether it's Los AngelesFilm Critics or the New York.
Film Critics.
Joseph (36:59):
Circle or the National Society of Film Critics Right.
Jules (37:02):
And I also want to say that this might not be true for
every voter.
That's a part of the BroadcastFilm Critics Association.
I'm sure that there are voterswho vote for what they genuinely
thought was the best and for,uh, films and filmmaking that
they thought were the best, thatthey want to spotlight.
But I think they're outnumberedby the amount of people who are
trying to predict the rightoscars, um nominations.
(37:25):
And I also say that you kind offeel this in the room.
Yeah, you know you can feelthere's the reason why at the
award show, the room of thegolden globes and the room yeah,
you know you can feel there'sthe reason why at the award show
, the room of the golden globesand the room of the sag and the
room of the bafta awards feelsdifferent than the room of the
critics choice.
It always kind of feels alittle bit awkward, awkward as
(37:45):
hell, and I think that's because, again, there's this spirit's
this spirit of non-genuineness.
That's happening.
You can't escape that air and Ijust really think they haven't
really solved that.
But I will say and I was justthinking about it right now and
I think this is an interestinganecdote to mention don't think
(38:06):
that every member of the Academyis beyond this way of thinking,
like the Critics' Choice Awards, because you and I in film
school had a professor oh that'sright who was a producer, he
wasn't.
he was a retired, he was kind ofretired but he taught us a
class and he was a member of theAcademy.
(38:28):
A member of the Academy, andI'm pretty sure they've kicked
him out by now.
I don't know if they have orthey haven't, but I know that he
and one of our both of ourclasses he would go out of his
way to mention, you know, hisOscar ballot and who he was
voting for, and when thenominations came out he was very
(38:48):
much bragging about how he gotthe five right.
Yeah, came out, he was verymuch bragging about how he got
the five right.
Yeah, this was uh, you knowwell I won't mention the.
I won't mention the year, yeah,but um he, he was very much
bragging about how he got thefive nominees right for best
picture as a producer.
I think that's the onlycategory that he could vote for
yeah um and like it was.
Joseph (39:10):
Like it was a lottery number.
Jules (39:11):
Exactly that, that it was sort of a code that he cracked.
Joseph (39:14):
Yeah.
Jules (39:14):
You know I got it right and that was the achievement.
The achievement was that I gotthe ballot correct.
Right as opposed to.
This is who I nominated myballot.
It was an honor to be part ofthis membership and it was an
honor to be able to spotlightthe films that I really thought
were the best.
Joseph (39:28):
That meant something to me.
Jules (39:29):
yeah, that meant something to me.
I don't care if one person sawit or two million people saw it,
Right, but it wasn't like thatat all.
It was, and it would surprise.
It certainly surprised me.
You know, you have thisimpression of all Academy voters
as being like that.
It's a more sort of pure.
You know, this is who I thoughtwas the best, who really left
an impact on me, Films that leftan impact on me.
(39:50):
This is what I'm voting for.
But there was a member, atleast you know, in our class who
was very proud about decoding.
Joseph (39:58):
Having gotten it right as opposed to having gotten you
know, a film that I genuinelyenjoyed be nominated in Best
Picture Right.
Jules (40:05):
So I won't say that this is something that only pertains
to the Critics' Choice Awards.
I think it's everywhere, butfor some reason at the Critics'
Choice Awards it just feels likeabundant.
Joseph (40:16):
Yeah, and I will say that is, you're going to tell me
that you've gathered a roomfull of critics every single
year to vote for their best top10 films.
And again, I don't want to pickon any individual critic
because I'm sure they all haveinteresting lists, but you have
to explain to me how, year afteryear, you come up with the same
boring list that the Academy isgoing to end up nominating, you
(40:40):
know, almost to a T, with eightto nine or seven spots.
There's got to be somethingwrong in how you're counting
votes, because if all thosecritics are voting their genuine
hearts, then we should have allkinds of opinions and we should
be seeing a lot of uniquechoices here, and that's just
not the case year after year,right?
So that's our kinds of opinionsand we should be seeing a lot of
unique choices here.
Um, and just that's just notthe case year after year.
Jules (40:54):
Right, so that's our issue and you know um, we're
going to be posting on ourTwitter page.
Yeah, Our predictions ourpredictions, uh, for who we
think is going to win at thecritics choice awards on Friday?
Joseph (41:07):
Um, be sure to, checkelia perez should win a lot
.
Jules (41:09):
And if it does not win, right, that's what I was going
to say.
Uh, but those uh nominees,those predictions, will be on
our twitter page.
Please feel free to check themout.
Um, but you know, in a way, aswe were mentioning earlier in
this podcast, amelia perezshould win this award, because
all this controversy happenedbefore or after the the voting
(41:31):
block was occurring supposedly.
So if emilia paris does not win, that's not going to do
anything to sort of uh, quellour worries, that our suspicions
, our suspicions, our skepticismthat there isn't some sort of
behind the scenes kind of okay,listen, we have to get it as
right as possible.
Em Emilia Perez technically won, but who was number two?
Joseph (41:53):
It's an inside job, because Emilia Perez is
definitely not going to win BestPicture at the Oscars.
Jules (41:56):
You know it's certainly not going to do much to quell
our concerns about that.
If Emilia Perez does win, I'llfeel better about it because
it'll feel more honest to me.
Joseph (42:05):
I'll tell you this and I've talked about it with you
before, but we're not members ofthe Critics' Choice and let's
be upfront about that.
But I always find itinteresting that when you see
Golden Globe predictions, onGold Derby and Oscar predictions
, you're going to see 4,000people participate, 11,000
people participate, 9,000.
(42:26):
When it comes time topredicting the Critics' Choice,
there's a lot less participationand my assumption is that
people are disbarred from bothvoting at the Critics' Choice
Awards and partaking on thatparticular award show on Gold.
Jules (42:42):
Derby On Gold Derby.
Joseph (42:43):
So that there are a lot of Critics' Choice voters that
are also Gold Derby predictors.
Jules (42:48):
Oh, okay, which again?
Joseph (42:50):
I think is just awkward.
Jules (42:51):
Yeah, it's weird to be both.
Seems like a conflict ofinterest.
Yeah, yeah, so we'll see whathappens.
Again, those predictions willbe up there.
Please check them out.
And then we'll get to the othertwo ceremonies that will be
occurring.
That are, you know, we're veryanxious to see who's going to
win those.
Traditionally, these arebiggies.
Yeah, anxious to see who'sgoing to win those.
(43:12):
Traditionally, these arebiggies.
Joseph (43:13):
Yeah, so we'll start with the Director's Guild.
So you had Jacques Ariard therefor Emilia Perez, sean Baker
for Onora, edward Berger forConclave, brady Corbett for the
Brutalist and James Mangold forA Complete Unknown all
first-time nominees.
Important to note here thatwhile voting was going on, it
did show that Edward Bergerwould not be nominated for an
(43:36):
Oscar for Conclave.
Instead, coralie Fargeau wouldbe for the Substance.
The rest overlap of the Academy.
That said, ben Affleck, Ibelieve, did win this award in
2012 for Argo, even without thatOscar nomination.
So, you know, it doesn't meanthat Edward Berger's chances are
completely zero.
Jules (43:54):
Well, you know, you're right.
That's a good point.
I'm not sure.
My gut is that, because he'snot nominated at the Oscars, he
definitely won't win the DGA.
And now that you know again,I'm going to go out on a limb
and say that the Emilia Perezscandal will affect who should
have won this, which I thinkwould have been Jacques Audiard,
(44:15):
who was on pace to win, rightexactly.
And so I think Jacques won'twin and that this will have some
effect on who wins this award.
It won't be Emilia Perez, andI'm going to go with it being
Brady Corbett winning for theBrutalist.
I think it's an interestingchoice, you know.
I think that Brady Corbettwinning for the Brutalist.
Joseph (44:31):
I think it's an interesting choice.
You know, I think that BradyCorbett is possibly a little
young here to win this award.
Jules (44:37):
That's a good point.
Joseph (44:37):
I don't think Edward Berger is going to be able to
pull off a Ben Affleck.
If he did, I would say thatConclave has to be the favorite
to win.
Jules (44:44):
Best Picture.
Joseph (45:02):
I'm going to say that my gut feeling is that the social
media of it all tied with itjust breaking a little too late
for these first awards, that theEmilia Perez pace is still
going to be there for thesecouple of awards.
So I do think Jacques Audillardwill end up winning here.
After this weekend, what we'regoing to see is a lot of other
guilds and organizations takethe opportunity to present
(45:22):
different types of winners tothe voting branch or the voting
members so they can sort of geta feel to oh, what's it like
when a complete unknown winssomething, or when the Brutalist
wins the DGA, as you said, orwhen a Nora wins the WGA, and
that's going to help them sortof cement who they're going to
vote for at the end.
Because, again, I do think theAmelia Perez fiasco is going to
have an effect at the AcademyAwards.
So if they see a bunch ofdifferent films, pick up
different little types of awards, they may start to give it to
(45:46):
whoever gave the best speech orthe most meaningful speech or
generated the most enthusiasmonline or with other outlets.
I think that that may be afactor, but I think these couple
of awards are a little tooearly.
So I do think that emilia perezwill win at the dga, if I'm
wrong, if I'm wrong.
Jules (46:04):
That's what I say.
My spoiler is going to be, asyou were saying jacques
ardillard for emilia perez, yeah, okay well, so I'm jacques
ardillard, I think's still onpace and this came out too late.
Joseph (46:13):
This fiasco, and then, if I'm wrong, the movie that I'm
thinking is in the bestposition to pick up steam
towards an eventual Oscar winfor best picture.
In my mind is a Nora, and so Ithink Brady Corbett is an
excellent choice, and the wholebest division of it all may end
up winning out here, but I thinkthe years that Sean Baker has
(46:36):
put in and just the fact thatthat film appeals to everyone
appeals to international voters,festival voters, art house
voters, mainstream voters,pretty women people, whatever.
I do think that it has almosteverything it needs.
So if Amelia Perez is reallystruggling here, I would think
that a has almost everything itneeds.
So if Amelia Perez is reallystruggling here, I would think
that Onora would pick it up.
Jules (46:55):
That's a really good point and a really good spoiler
For the Producers Guild Awards.
The nominees mimicked theOscars close about 80%, if I'm
not mistaken Right.
Joseph (47:08):
And the nominees were Onora the Boudalist, a Complete
Unknown Conclave Dune, part 2,.
Emilia Perez A Real Pain,september 5,.
The Substance and Wicked.
Jules (47:26):
Right, and for the exact same reasons that you just said
for Onora, I believe Onora willbe winning the Producers Guild
Award, even though my spoilerwould probably still be Emilia
Paris slash Possibly Wicked asbeing the alternative to Emilia
Paris.
But right now my gut tells methat, again, the controversy has
(47:49):
had an effect already and thatthe winner for the producers
guild awards will be anora Ithink it's a very interesting
choice.
Joseph (47:57):
Um, I've thought about it myself.
I'm still gonna say that emiliaperez is on pace to win here
and that this uh fiasco againhasn't completely derailed it
here.
It's gonna need a little bitmore time for us to see that
effect.
So I think amelia perez willwin here at the pga.
If I had to choose a spoiler,you know, I think there's a very
(48:19):
good argument for wicked, butwhen you think that top gun
maverick and barbie weren't ableto capitalize here, I do have
some hesitation.
So instead of going for wicked,I think I'm gonna sort of flip
with you.
We're flip-flopping here rightbut I'm gonna say that the best
spoiler is the brutalist right,which I think again.
There's so much movie there forso little money that I think
(48:41):
producers are going to be alittle bit enthralled by that
that's a good point.
Jules (48:44):
That's a good point.
Joseph (48:44):
So I'm gonna go, amelia perez still on pace to win the
brutalist as the spoiler okay,um.
Jules (48:50):
Well, that was our rundown of several uh topics and
upcoming uh awards, right, andwe'll be seeing what happens.
We'll be having our sort ofreport on what's been occurring,
um, over the last several daysin our next podcast, right,
which should be up later in theweek next week yeah and until
(49:11):
and until then.
This is Jules and I'm Joseph,and it's been a pleasure.
The music on this episodeentitled Cool Cats was
graciously provided by KevinMacLeod and incompetechcom,
licensed under Creative Commonsby Attribution 3.0.
(49:31):
Http//creativecommonsorg.
Licenses by 3.0.
Joseph (49:47):
Disclaimer the Academy Anonymous podcast is in no way
affiliated or endorsed by theAcademy of Motion Picture Arts
and Sciences.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!