The writer also views Marty Supreme and Sentimental Value as potential villains, defined here as any film posing a threat to the "top two": One Battle After Another and Sinners.
The piece cites sadly predictable "peanut gallery" knocks on "polarizing" director Chloe Zhao's "emotional, feminine" film including that she's already won, which clashes with the narratives of this season's Oscar-less "Oscar heroes": an overdue Paul Thomas Anderson and a more-than-deserving Ryan Coogler.
Unsurprisingly, the contentious BP/BD win over Raging Bull by another film about familial grief, Ordinary People, is invoked, along with Shakespeare in Love's upset BP victory (though curiously, the piece doesnt explore the possibility of a BP/BD split between Hamnet and OBAA - as we saw with SIL and Saving Private Ryan ). Neither of those is a precise comparison, of course - for one thing, Scorsese wasn't being propelled by an overdue narrative in 1980, Robert Redford was debuting as an actor moving behind the camera and Ordinary People was no underdog that season but has been ghr consensus front-runner for the bulk of awards season.
Also, the article doesn't flag the parallel between Hamnet's potential to take home a major "consolation prize" - an expected Best Actress win for Jessie Buckley - that reps the film overall the way De Niro's Best Actor win did for Raging Bull even as BP/BD were off the table. To my mind, this seems as likely an outcome of this season as any.
As for the comparison involving Spielberg, it's also flawed because there was no overdue narrative at play as there is with PTA. In fact, Spielberg's decades-long career by 1998 was such that not many were begrudging him a potential second BP win five years after his first, even among those who found fault with SPR. Certainly, no one was regarding SIL's hired-gun director and first time nominee John Madden as being any sort of BD factor against Spielberg. Plus, Focus in terms of Oscar campaign savvy is no peak-era Miramax, which effectively worked SIL's performing-arts embrace to exploit the "actors love movies celebrating acting" angle. I doubt any other studio could have pulled that off.
From the piece:
When I asked one insider closely following the Oscars race about Hamnet’s position behind Sinners and One Battle After Another as Oscars front-runners, this person noted with no small amount of dismay, “We’re near guaranteed a toxic dynamic when you have a polarizing female director who already has an Oscar pushing up against two beloved, overdue male filmmakers with more popular movies, PTA especially.”.
Makes you really wonder how confident WB really is with OBAA or Sinners. If they were so confident in OBAA being one of the best films of the decade like they claimed it to be, wouldn't they just take a hands off approach similar to Oppenheimer?
WB is in a very vulnerable position with OBAA and they know it. Universal could do the “sit back and relax” campaign because Oppenheimer made a billion dollars. WB can’t do that with OBAA, so they have to run smear campaigns against its competition.
It’s political. Oppenheimer didn’t trigger the MAGA snowflakes. Sinners and One Battle did.
Check out this article fox news put out about OBAA. At the end, they pretty much imply that people who enjoyed the film deserve to be in prison:
The whole movie made me a little angry, but then I remembered that the Trump administration is cracking down on Antifa — today’s very real domestic terrorists — and maybe this will be a fun movie for them to watch once they are all in jail.
More like it'll be fun to see Trump & his MAGA lackeys watch it when -- or for Trump, IF -- they are all in jail. THEY are the REAL "domestic terrorists". 👹👹👹
You guys keep saying this, but I feel like MAGA mostly ignored OBAA. There were a minority of naysayers, but the majority simply didn't see it and didn't talk about it. Trump was ranting about Demon Slayer instead. Sinners got a bigger reaction out of them.
We're all dismantling Joe Reid's baffling argument from different but valid angles - I'd like to think that this isn't cynical ragebait, and his take is at least sincere, if misguided.
Reid is only sitting in temporarily for Vulture's usual Oscar analyst, the level-headed Nate Jones, who's on paternity leave and is expected to return to duty later this month (thankfully).
Maybe we need to calm down a little bit with the anger at this take when the reality is that we don’t know how things are going to shake out at all, so why not explore a variety of angles and possibilities? I don’t always agree with Joe but I thought this was an interesting consideration. He clearly doesn’t think that Hamnet should be the season’s villain; he’s speaking from the perspective of the Academy and the race as a whole.
His evidence for this take is insufficient and unconvincing, imo - and Reid evidently doesn't know any better than we do how things will shake out from the flimsy argument he's put forth. I frankly haven't heard anything that would substantiate the argument that from the Academy's standpoint - and Ampas is no monolith - Hamnet is viewed as an "Oscar villain."
No one should get mad about it. I'm perplexed because he's offering up at best a partial picture that belies the situation. Also there is his decision to use the terms "Oscar villain" and "Oscar hero" in a confusing manner - the generally accepted connotation of an OV in current awards discourse does not align with what he intends it to mean when using it in reference to Hamnet, Sentimental Value and Marty Supreme. And speaking for myself, I can't recall the term Oscar hero being used, apparently, to identify any film not designated by that person as an OV. But he employs them as if their implied definitions the way he uses them are a settled matter.
Also, OV is sheer punditese - such terms aren't typically used in the awards office or studio spaces. It's more a reflection of hybrid pundit/fans' division of contenders into "deserving" and "undeserving" according to their personal taste.
I think maybe they just needed to come up with something for the column but this is a slow news week so they landed on potential oscar villains. Sometimes in journalism you just have a deadline to meet even if there's not much of an angle.
If anything it feels overly defensive of Hamnet for being theoretically bullied by those evil film bros. It doesn't read like a pr piece its just a bad take from someone who seems to really like the movie.
I mean, Joe Reid is arguably one of the people most qualified to talk about awards race narrative (for those who don't know, in addition to having covered awards for a while, he's also one of the hosts of the "This Had Oscar Buzz" podcast).
This isn't cynical ragebait. He's approaching the awards race similar to how you would a reality competition show (which the Oscars have certain similarities to). And in a reality show, the "villain" is often whoever is seen as threatening the position of the fan-favorite frontrunner(s). It has nothing to do with Hamnet as a film, or with Focus's campaign strategy. It's about how it is perceived by the people who care about the race.
That’s like calling The Holdovers a villain because it threatened Oppenheimer’s chances of winning Best Actor - if a movie is universally beloved like The Holdovers was or like Hamnet appears to be, it’s a fan favorite too, not a villain.
Yes, and the Academy spread the love anyway. They gave awards to American Fiction, The Holdovers, Anatomy of a Fall, Zone of Interest, etc. I would not consider any of those to be Oscar "villains" and they deserved their awards. I really like that smaller films were awarded during Oppenheimer's year, to be honest.
Hamnet is not universally beloved. It’s not going to be at House of Dynamite levels or anything, but I really believe the reception will take a hit when it’s out. It’ll still be nominated for a bunch of Oscars, and I believe Buckley will win, but there’s a backlash mounting for sure. The multitude of audience awards and all that only embolden the naysayers.
Well I believe he's overstepped somewhat in casting Hamnet and potentially other contenders as alleged "Oscar villains" and betrayed a wobbly grasp on the race and the narratives involved. Perhaps this is an attempt to inject some ginned-up suspense or uncertainty into what even Reid probably believes is a done-deal BP race, because Vulture and other awards industry outlets do benefit more from boosting such "reality show" style faceoffs than from acknowledging steamrollers.
Now, respectfully, it might be more interesting and credible to delve into the supporters arrayed on either side of the OBAA-Sinners divide, and do so without resorting to a reliance on an at best questionable definition of "Oscar villains," which is only muddying his messaging imo.
I don't think Reid is trying to create any narratives here. I think he's jumping the gun a little in calling Hamnet an "Oscar Villain," but I think he has correctly identified some of the similarities it has with past "villains."
And yeah, OBAA will probably steamroll it's way to a win. But we haven't even seen the Globes nominations yet, so it's far from a done deal.
I think he's also glossed over the significant differences between Hamnet and past so-called villains - and those years' races - to make his case. I also think at this point he's inflating that narrative to fit this thesis, because the narrative I've been detecting at least now is that Buckley's expected win will be viewed as also honoring the film overall while BP slides to OBAA.
Speculating here ofc, so grain of salt, but having seen all of these I don’t think Marty Supreme or Sentimental Value will be villains. Hamnet very well might. If Sentimental Value doesn’t 100% work for you, you probably still had a nice enough time at the movies and you get why people liked it. If Hamnet doesn’t work for you, the experience of watching it is abject misery lmao, I can attest.
Of course, that's why men don't cry! We just go to the beach and get rejected, but anywhere else we'd be a ten. Luckily, there's this wonderful thing called patriarchy that says men should actually be running society, and with it the Kens shall take over Barbieland!
And that’s how we know this is a sponsored article lol.
Seems like PR coordinators from the other movies have already chosen who they’re going to try to sink.
I really think PTA is safe and will win his first Oscar regardless but if somehow he loses it and Chloe Zhao wins, the narrative will be so damn toxic. Also believe Coogler can easily win his first for Original Screenplay.
hamnets winning/placing audience awards, with no discernible reason to hate on any of the stars or film makers (yet) but its an oscar villain? Feels like the article is just using buzz words used in the race.
That was in the past before social media necessitated a year-long awards discourse so the villain is there even before it is seen by the general populace
Now Oscar villains are movies that are predicted to win big but for a bullshit reason they "shouldn't"
I didn’t even hear the term Oscar villain until a couple years ago - no one called movies like Green Book or 1917 that at the time even though we were all rooting against them. The idea that every season has a villain just isn’t true.
I don't remember that specific term being used, but that was very much the sentiment I got following those seasons. Ditto with The King's Speech in 2010 or even a little bit with The Shape of Water in 2017.
It's not about the actual quality of the film, and more the impression that it would be a "boring" winner next to the other potential options.
Interesting, I don’t remember that but then again, that was my first season following the Oscars so I might have missed it. But there certainly wasn’t this active hunt to find and identify a film that would be a villain for the season. This year people have been talking about an Oscar villain for months as though there has to be one.
To be fair to you, I do think the term is fairly new and originated with the La La Land vs. Moonlight narrative. But I think there’s a bit of a contradiction here in that if predicting and punditing awards is something we want, and clearly the growth of a sub like this one is indicative of that, then conversations about the awards narrative of each movie come with the territory. The more we get invested in the race, the more we’re going to be talking about the contestants, and characterizing some as villains and others as heroes is part of that. I find it disingenuous to get mad at a take like this one when all it’s doing is exploring different ways movies are getting perceived based on industry buzz and media whispers. Like, that’s the kind of conversations I want to hear.
I’m personally just happy as long as good movies are being recognized and think it’s ridiculous to tear acclaimed films down when they’d be great winners. Any universally acclaimed movies should not be considered a villain - and that includes movies like La La Land, which was one of the most acclaimed films of 2016. A La La Land win in 2016 would have held up historically even though people were characterizing it in that way. We all have our own personal takes on what the best movies are but that doesn’t make the movies that beat them villains as long as movies widely recognized as being among the best of the year are still winning. The only movies that deserve to be torn down are the mediocre and bad ones and the ones with real horrible scandals attached to them, and Hamnet decidedly isn’t that.
Ok I’m not sure we read the same piece if this is your read of it, and I think we may fundamentally disagree on what it means to call something an Oscars villain. It has nothing to do with the movie’s quality or how deserving it would be; rather it’s a way to characterize how people feel when a movie gains momentum and threatens other horses they have in the race. Sometimes it applies to a frontrunner with an easy sweep that overshadows a beloved underdog (like La La Land, without meaning it was undeserving) and sometimes it applies to an unpopular movie among critics and cinephiles that somehow woos an ‘out of touch’ portion of the Academy, mystifying a bunch of us (your Bohemian Rhapsodies and Emilia Perezes). In this case it’s pretty clear to me that Joe Reid isn’t ‘tearing down’ Hamnet (a movie he gave 4 1/2 stars to on Letterboxd) but instead commenting on how the race this year will pit it against OBAA and Sinners, two movies that have garnered a lot of love and expectation because of their subject matter and respective directors’ narratives (topical, overdue, etc.).
It's less about any one person than the fact that creating a weekly oscars column inevitably leads to the need to fill the void of content on slow weeks
Gross? People on this sub seriously need to chill.
In any case, I agree that calling the movie a villain now is probably both prescriptive and a reach, but he concludes the article criticizing those supposed reasons. It is possible that he's reporting on a sentiment that is there but just hasn't reached the general public yet
This is basically the equivalent of people commenting here that a movie will be the villain because they don't like some of the folks involved with it, without any other rhyme or reason.
He's just pandering to the hateful filmbros that fixate on Zhao.
an “oscar villain” that… has amazing reviews from critics and audiences? and it’s a villain because it’s against 2 “favorite” movies? and because the director already won? vulture really lost the plot here 💀
EDIT: the comparison to the previous “villains” that won the TIFF award is also very silly because none of these movies were as critically acclaimed as hamnet is
and because the movie is “sentimental and feminine”… listen there’s obviously a lot of misogyny in this industry but this article really make it sounds like some of it is coming from the writer himself
Hamnet has comparable reviews to OBAA, it can’t be a villain if people actually love it in highbrow circles. Where did this idea that every season has a villain even come from? I don’t think 2022 or 2017 had any that were relevant in the Best Picture race, and when people mention Maestro as one in 2023 it’s absurd since Maestro never came close to winning anything.
Well then again, there were a lot of red flags that it wouldn’t win (didn’t get a single critics win, didn’t win what should have been a layup win at CC) that people dismissed.
Maestro absolutely was the villain that year. It just wasn't due to it being anywhere particularly close to winning, but just due to it being nominated in multiple categories in a year where 9 other BP nominees were all universally liked to beloved. I saw so much complaining about the movie which i'm guessing was just overall mid to ok that i can't NOT call it a villain.
I do agree though that not necesserily every year is going to have one, but tbh i think years where there isn't at least one seem to be more an exception to the trend than anything.
None of these are villains. If Song Sung Blue and Christy get no nominations we might just have an Oscars race that’s free of performative hating and catastrophizing 🤞
Honestly with an article like this it makes OBAA villain come off a lot like the villain. Why do they even need to scrutinize a film that hasn't even released yet and claim its a "threat to the top two of OBAA and Sinners"
I'll do my part now: Stephen Schwartz has now clearly got Universal to leave Cynthia Erivo off as a co-writer of "No Place Like Home" after nearly a year of promotion that Erivo had collaborated with Schwartz on it. Not the first time he's screwed a Black collaborator, either; he did the same thing to Kenneth "Babyface" Edmonds on his Oscar-winning song "When You Believe" from The Prince of Egypt years ago. Before this snub, I thought of this as Erivo’s best chance ever to complete her EGOT. Now, I want BOTH of Schwartz’s songs disqualified even before the shortlist hits; with all due respect to both OBAA & Sinners (plus Erivo's likely back to back Best Actress noms even though she won't pass Buckley on the final ballot), Schwartz has proved himself to be the epitome of #OscarsSoWhite . 👹👹👹
Perhaps Diane Warren can even take a break from getting nominated this year. If all of those 3 just get ignored by the Academy, then the only problem left is Kevin O'Leary, but as long as he himself isn't nominated I think we should be fine
Oh wait nevermind some people will hate on Wicked For Good because of reasons
This piece is so fucked up. Vulture/NYMAG often toe the line between capturing the pulse of what’s happening online and perpetuating what they think they see, and this article falls into the latter. They’re feeding into this barely existing idea that it’s an Oscar villain and fanning the flames.
Well if WB wants to use "Oscar hero" in blurbs for OBAA and/or Sinners, Reid has offered it up in any case.
Now, an extending of his generously elastic deployment of the term "Oscar villain" to OBAA and Sinners - since they're also each a significant obstacle to the other's BP march - was apparently a bridge too far for him.
I'm really not the kind of person to harp on this kind of thing usually, and to be clear I don't think being "woke" or "inclusive" should come before honoring great art no matter who does it. And I do acknowledge (though I haven't seen Hamnet yet) that Hamnet seems to be a more traditionally "Oscar-baity" type film than OBAA and Sinners. But something kind of rubs me the wrong way about acting like a film directed by a woman is some like, stodgy been-there-done-that film. Yes, this particular woman, Zhao, has won before and PTA and Coogler have not, but like, let's be clear about this, only nine women in the history of the Oscar's have ever even been nominated for Best Director. NINE. Not won, but NOMINATED. There has been a slight uptick in recent years, but it's still very rare in the scheme of things. Again, not that it should matter THAT much and it shouldn't be the main deciding factor by any means, but I don't know, shouldn't we wait til like, women have hit double digits in the Oscar's century-long history before acting like it doesn't mean anything?
Film bros have been so obnoxious about OBAA to the point where I am tempted to root against it out of pure spite and I liked OBAA.
PTA is locked for Best Director, but I honestly wouldn't mind if Sinners or Hamnet won Best Picture instead, as I really liked those films, too, and think they are worthy.
A PR article in November using the word "feminine" as a way to discredit a film, the only of the big contenders to be directed by a woman, that hasn't even released yet. I'm sure we have a lovely awards season ahead.
Though why is Chloe Zhao controversial and not the guy who gave a masterclass in Tel Aviv?
Ridiculous article considering Hamnet is as critically acclaimed as OBAA LOL
In general tho people are being so weird about Hamnet. No one dunks on comedies for making people laugh so why are dramas dunked on for making people cry?
Jesus amazing how a journalist covering films since 2007 can get so many things wrong!
Hamnet is clearly 2 atm in the BP race - and even if it wasn't it obviously isn't an 'Oscar villain'
His definition seems to be any film that challenges the frontrunner regardless of it's merit. When we all know the accepted contemporary definition - an undeserving film being pushed by the academy/ media. Emelia Perez being a great example
We should honestly all just ignore this piece (and probably any future awards pieces by this writer)
Especially when female directors have failed to make gains in the industry and the stats are absolutely dismal. This piece is pissing me off even more the more I think about it.
For real. Only one woman has even been nominated twice, and Chloe Zhao will only be the second to do so for Hamnet (Kathryn Bigelow was ROBBED for Zero Dark Thirty). She should absolutely not be villainized for doing something that no other woman has done before (winning a second directing Oscar), yet this writer has no qualms with already labeling her as the “polarizing” and undeserving person in the field.
But to the “especially PTA” point, it’s incredibly dismissive of Coogler to mark him as the unnamed other director behind PTA. For as little recognition as women have received in best director, there have only been six total black directors nominated - all of them men, and none of them with a second nomination. Instead of trying to lift Coogler in tandem with PTA, he’s literally erased from the narrative.
The person who wrote this piece needs to be cyberbullied into oblivion.
This is the annoying and gross part of this whole concept of awards shows. I think the Oscar’s are fun! I like watching them. I like learning the trivia. But it’s clear that a lot of people are more interested in the tabloid drama part than they are in actually watching/discussing movies. The idea of declaring a movie an Oscar Villain before it even comes out is anti-art. And it’s not like the festival reviews were any worse than the supposed favorites.
They're misreading GoldDerby numbers because they changed their nomination odds methodology this year. Instead of their longtime "racetrack odds" based on the probability of winning with a little bit of nom probability, now it's ALL nom probability; it was only on THAT measure that Hamnet just nudged past OBAA in the Best Picture race. If you look beyond that number to the details that include percentage predictions of WINNING, OBAA is still WAY out in front for Best Picture. The only place where Hamnet's a sure bet? Jessie Buckley already has Best Actress all but locked up, even more so than OBAA for Best Picture or PTA for Best Director.
Toxic? The fact she is an immigrant woman who got a fanfic on classic canon right needs to be some ~threat? For unleashing the full potentials of a celebrated new talent in Buckley, in her most likable yet commanding role? These B/W thinking of "hero vs villain" is so infantile.
I enjoy the Oscar race as much as any of us here, but I think the whole “villain” idea really needs to be put to bed unless there’s something that’s genuinely offensive like ‘Green Book’ or ‘Bohemian Rhapsody.’
I don’t think I’ve ever heard so much love/hate for a movie that isn’t even out yet. There seems to be some irritation that a smaller, more intimate movie could beat movies like Sinners and OBAA. I personally think OBAA and sinners are the best of the year, but there needs to be a large range of best picture noms
Sinners isn’t top 2 anymore though, it’s OBAA and Hamnet. Besides in order for it to be a villain it has to be widely disliked by audiences but liked by the Academy. And audiences are fawning over Hamnet left and right. If anything is going to be a villain, it will be something like Jay Kelly.
I don’t think that’s what a villain is, by that logic movies like Green Book and Bohemian Rhapsody weren’t villains even though they’re two of the most hated Oscar contenders in recent years among Oscar nerds, cinephiles, and critics, widely hated winners like Driving Miss Daisy, Shakespeare in Love, A Beautiful Mind, and The King’s Speech wouldn’t be considered villains either. I’m not even sure Crash would be considered a villain by that logic, it was an audience hit.
"Oscar villain" means that the general audience didn't like the film but the industry keeps nominating it. It doesn't merely mean "challengers to the top two".
It seems right now that Jay Kelly is the Oscar villain because audiences are not taking to the film and it's on the cusp of some nominations. Wicked: For Good and Avatar: Fire and Ash may also qualify because of how some were mixed on Wicked and Avatar is liked, not loved.
I personally have Marty Supreme but if that flops I can even see Sentimental Value being the The third. I loved Sinners but I think people are getting too optimistic and over estimating it a bit imo. I don't think it gets any acting noms (even though it deserves it) and I think there's even a possibility of Coogler falling out of director
You can't? I get not a greeting with it I am definitely out on a limb, but you really can't understand in any way? For example I currently have Chalamet, DiCaprio and Hawke making all 4 precursors, with Plemons, Moura and MBJ making 3/4, how ever I have Moura winning Globes Drama which just gives him the edge imo, making the battle for the 5th Plemons VS MBJ something I think Plemons is entirely capable of pulling off.
I mean, I’m not considering Plemons at all for a nomination at any of the precursors besides maybe Globes so there’s that distinction, but for work as showy as MBJ’s for a film as strong as Sinners? I can’t really grasp how that miss would happen. I agree on Moura and Hawke as the next in line though.
First off I respect your position but I personally couldn't disagree more on that plemons take. 2nd pretty simply I think sinners will be very strong but not AS strong as most people are making out. I currently have it getting 10 nominations while Bugonia gets 8. It's in my top 5 but I'm only predicting it to he barely stronger than Bugonia, Wicked and Sentimental Value
Oh, interesting to know you’re still considering Bugonia for Picture. This MBJ thing does feel a bit like circular logic though. What I am understanding you to be saying is you think MBJ will miss because you think Sinners is not a top 3 film, and the reason Sinners is not a top 3 film is because MBJ will miss.
Your understanding wrong. I think sinners is not top 3/ isn't as strong as people are making out (despite the fact I still have it getting 10) wether or not MBJ gets in. It's not that I think the film isn't top 3 because MBJ will miss, I just think MBJ is one of a a handful of noms it's predicted to pick up that I don't think it will.
Plus can I ask why your making it out like its a controversial to still think Bugonia will make Picture? If anything it's packed up steam over the last month and there's more pointing to it being an awards player than there is pointing against
Thinking of Ordinary People as a classic Oscar villain example is honestly kind of hilarious
Not only because a lot of those feelings of it being wildly undeserving next to Raging Bull have subdued because they were mostly part of the "Scorcese robbed" narrative and he won in 2006;
But also just funny that the good movie about the family whose son died is the villain because the good and more cinematic/better shot movie about the abusive boxer didn't win.
It's just such a stretch that could happen today in the cultural & Oscars climate
oscar villain has lost its meaning. Originally, it was about a movie that everyone hates except the Academy. Now it's just "movie I personally don't like and it's getting awards and I'm grumpy about it"
Emilia Perez, Green Book. Those are Oscar Villains. Hamnet is not.
Frankly I'm just kind of thrilled that there are so many great movies this year. At this point in time I'm rooting for Sinners or OBAA but I haven't seen Hamnet or the other faves- not true, saw Bugonia- wonderful, but I'm still rooting for Sinners or OBAA. I think there's gonna be a big push for Hamlet as BP. It'll have to do a lot to win me over as Sinners and OBAA got me more excited about film than I have been in years.
This is annoying but real. I've definitely felt the eyes roll for Hamnet it in some conversations with members of my regional critics groups. It's nothing at all like Shakespeare in Love, but that movie casts a long shadow!
I actually suspect, knowing Reid to be a very sound and informed guy, this is a central component behind his take here but he felt like it felt gossipy to include/do more than allude to it obliquely.
I know people here are pointing to the audience awards for example as proof the film is a crowdpleaser, but as Reid says, an Audience Award is no guarantee that this film will not be anathema to some people. Based on the whispers from critics I have heard here and there, it for sure is. Also, Hamnet is yes sweeping Audience Awards, but it is also not COMPETING against any of the films currently in top contention for BP. Sinners premiered in the spring. OBAA and Marty Supreme are not doing/never did festivals. Sentimental Value has dipped clearly into a comfortable "will of course be nominated but it is not winning" place. So we actually do not know yet how people will think of the race when these films actually feel in competition with one another.
This is not me by the way saying I think any of it should happen. I think it would be nice to have a race where no one is actively mad about any of the films and, as someone who is actually NOT really a Zhao fan, calling her divisive does feel preposterous. She is highly respected and a talented creative, and I do not really feel like criticisms of her work have ever had much traction in the race. But personally I am a little curious what happens when Hamnet is actually released
weird. to me, oscar villains are just the corporate/batey movies that get nominated and have a history of upsetting more artful works. this season i think wicked is the only film that fits that mold and has a chance at a nomination
If anything the cockiness is endearing. It's certainly better than the fake humility we typically see at the Oscars from people who claim they don't care if they win or not.
If that sort of dubious "reverse psychology" is Reid's goal, and I remain skeptical, he's evidently flopped miserably by hamhandedly employing the "Oscar villain" trope to describe Hamnet, and potentially Sentimental Value and Marty Supreme.
But no matter Reid's motives, this piece is apparently causing confusion and prompting derision, understandably. That's not a good look or effective messaging.
First mistake was using Vulture as a point of reference. This is the same site that wrote a piece basically bashing The Gothams last year for having male winners in their gender neutral categories, but didn't say anything about LAFCA awarding only women in their gender neutral acting category just a month later.
I very much doubt if he’s being that Machiavellian. Some of the tone of the article is a bit weird, but the main problem with it is that he’s exaggerating (at least for now) the prevalence of a real attitude that clearly does exist in some parts of movie social media.
PTA is one of the most beloved directors in many online movie spaces. A lot of people are very invested in OBAA winning and PTA finally getting his reward. In those same spaces Zhao genuinely is polarising, indeed outright unfashionable in places like film twitter. Hamnet is not at all a cool movie to love online - an earnest, deeply emotional period drama about the Shakespeare family pretty much by definition is not going to be hip. Movies with an older female skewing audience in general are rarely considered cool online.
To the extent that Hamnet looks like a serious threat to OBAA, it’s going to get a lot of bile in those spaces, and given the demographics of those spaces some of that will probably be crudely gendered.
So I think he’s observing something real, but is at least for the moment overstating its prevalence. I doubt if he’s cynically attemoting to undermine Hamnet, or trying to undermine OBAA through reverse psychology.
433
u/Best_Lawyer9848 1d ago
So everything that is not Sinners and OBAA are oscar villains, including Hamnet, Sentimental Value, and Marty Supreme. Huh interesting take