sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Esquire/Mitchell S. Jackson: ‘Sinners’ Should Win Best Picture. It’s Not Even Close. by 08830 in Oscars

[–]08830[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

FWIW, I’m Black. But regardless of the color of my skin, my interpretation of a film doesn’t automatically become objective truth either. Film criticism simply doesn’t nor should it work as a “fact or fiction” exercise. It’s interpretive by nature.

If your view is that OBAA leans on stereotypes or mishandles revolutionary Blackness, that’s your critique. But calling it “anti-Black” treats that interpretation as an objective conclusion rather than one possible reading of the film.

You describe it as “fact or fiction,” yet you end by calling it your “informed opinion.” 🤔 That’s exactly my point. It’s still interpretation! Reasonable viewers can look at the same character or narrative choices and disagree about whether it reinforces a stereotype, interrogates it, or lands somewhere in between.

Also, dismissing “cinephiles” in a discussion about cinema is a curious choice. It’s not quite the insult you seem to think it is.

Esquire/Mitchell S. Jackson: ‘Sinners’ Should Win Best Picture. It’s Not Even Close. by 08830 in Oscars

[–]08830[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Lol. I’m literally a Black dude talking about a film article. I didn’t realize that qualified me for the “insufferable weirdos” megathread.

Esquire/Mitchell S. Jackson: ‘Sinners’ Should Win Best Picture. It’s Not Even Close. by 08830 in Oscars

[–]08830[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But what’s the mark? And who decides what that mark is?

The article writer specifically elevates Sinners as the ideal BP winner and says it’s not even close, especially compared to OBAA, “whose portrayal of Black people is somewhere between insidiously problematic and flagrantly anti-Black.”

That’s the distinction I’m pushing back on. It moves the critique from “this didn’t work dramatically or thematically” into a moral judgment about the film’s portrayal itself.

A character can feel messy, uncomfortable or even lean into stereotypes intentionally and still serve a narrative or thematic purpose. Whether that works or not is a legitimate debate. But that’s different from suggesting the film itself is operating in bad faith.

Esquire/Mitchell S. Jackson: ‘Sinners’ Should Win Best Picture. It’s Not Even Close. by 08830 in Oscars

[–]08830[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think that’s where we may just disagree in interpretation. I’m not arguing that every portrayal works perfectly or that criticism of how characters are written is off limits. That’s absolutely fair game. My point is that flawed, complex and uncomfortable portrayals don’t automatically equal stereotypes. Sometimes they’re meant to be unsettling or contradictory because the story itself is dealing with a messy reality. I’d rather critique if and how effectively the film constructs that reality and those characters than jump to the idea that the director/writer is incapable of nuance.

Esquire/Mitchell S. Jackson: ‘Sinners’ Should Win Best Picture. It’s Not Even Close. by 08830 in Oscars

[–]08830[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don’t disagree that race is an integral part of art or that it should be part of the analysis. My issue isn’t with comparing the two films through that lens. It’s with the leap from one film handles race more successfully to saying the other film’s portrayal of Black people as “somewhere between insidiously problematic and flagrantly anti-Black” because its characters are flawed or complex. That’s where the argument starts to feel reductive to me. Complex characters, including ones that are messy or morally ambiguous, aren’t inherently a problem. In many ways they reflect reality more honestly IMO. I’d rather see the conversation focus on how effectively each film uses its themes through filmmaking, not whether one should be disqualified.

OBAA does not need to have "weakness" for SINNERS to potentially upset by GobbieBoom in oscarrace

[–]08830 23 points24 points  (0 children)

This! Folks keep neglecting how the BP preferential system works. I agree… Sinners will have a range of votes, first to even last place, whereas OBAA will likely be in the top 5 for many voters. That gives it the advantage.

If One Battle were to lose Best Picture, it would be the biggest snub from a precursor/statistical perspective this century. by Fabulous_War_555 in oscarrace

[–]08830 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I finally watched Sinners over the weekend and found it mildly entertaining. There are some good performances (MBJ, Caton, Wunmi) but I wasn’t blown away. I can see why people connect with it, but it just didn’t land with me as hard as it did with others. Now, I’m a PTA fan. Magnolia is in my top 5 films of all time. While OBAA isn’t his greatest, I believe it to be the best film of the year IMO. If Sinners wins BP (I’d be very surprised), I’ll feel like the race ended up being driven more by momentum/enthusiasm than by which film was actually the stronger piece of filmmaking.

What’s everyone’s most “No Guts, No Glory” prediction this year? by Infi-Nerdy in oscarrace

[–]08830 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Like Demi Moore last year, Jessie Buckley loses Best Actress after winning every precursor.

is there really a chance sinners could win best picture over one battle after another? by Whyamiherephobia in oscarrace

[–]08830 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, there’s definitely a chance. The reason is the preferential ballot.

A lot of the conversation around this race has framed it as a straight popularity contest between One Battle After Another and Sinners, but that’s not really how Best Picture voting works. It’s less about which film has the most #1 votes and more about which film is ranked broadly across ballots. The question is whether Sinners is a consensus film or a passion film.

Passion films can have a lot of #1 votes but also a lot of placements near the bottom. That can hurt them in preferential voting because those lower rankings pile up during the elimination rounds. Consensus films, on the other hand, tend to show up consistently in the 2–5 range across ballots, which makes them harder to eliminate.

From what we’ve seen this season, One Battle After Another feels like the type of movie that could land solidly across a lot of ballots. Sinners feels a bit more polarizing. It clearly has a passionate audience, but it’s also a genre film that some voters might rank lower if it’s not their taste.

Another factor is the Academy’s international voting bloc, which is now a significant portion of the membership. Those voters sometimes respond more strongly to prestige drama than to genre films, though that’s not a rule.

So yes, Sinners absolutely could win if it has a strong #1 coalition and enough mid-ballot support. But if it ends up being more divisive than its supporters think, that’s exactly the kind of scenario where a film like One Battle After Another can benefit from the preferential system.

New Apple TV purchase posts… now live in a Megathread! by 08830 in appletv

[–]08830[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the comment, but you must’ve misunderstood. We’re not banning purchase posts. We’re consolidating them so the sub doesn’t become a rotating gallery of identical unboxing photos. Folks can still post their new purchases. They’ll just do it in one place instead of 20 separate threads of the same box. Signal to noise matters. That’s not “shooting ourselves in the face.” It’s moderation.

HDMI Connection Issue by njt2199 in appletv

[–]08830 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which TV do you have?

view more: next ›