Oscar judges have to see all the films, Academy warned

Voter takes aim at ‘snobby’ institution which puts too much emphasis on actors’ ‘brand’ and reputation

OSCAR winners should be decided only by Academy members who have seen all longlisted films, it has been suggested, amid deep resentment at the “snobby” institution rejecting actors whose “brand” they don’t value.

Tonight’s Academy Awards have been overshadowed by controversy once again, after Jennifer Lopez was ignored for her role in Hustlers, and Adam Sandler snubbed for Uncut Gems.

The rejection of their work was attributed in part to snobbery, and partly to Academy members not bothering to watch the films.

“First of all, Hustlers is not an ‘Oscar movie’,” one Academy member said.

“It’s a little too rough around the edges, and I’m assuming some other people in the acting category didn’t see it. Actors tend to think of Jennifer Lopez as a phenomenon more than an actress, per se. Lady Gaga lost the Oscar to Olivia Colman – a real actor’s actor.”

The voter added that an actor’s reputation in Hollywood can decide a category more than their performance, and that many Academy members will not watch all the films up for nomination.

He told the New York Post: “Unfortunately, actors become brands. Sandler’s brand doesn’t scream Oscar, but Leo DiCaprio’s and Jonathan Pryce’s do.”

Carey Mulligan, the British actress, agreed, and argued that the 8,000 members of the Academy should have to prove that they had seen the films in their category. Each member is allowed to vote in their section – be it acting, make-up, editing and so on.

Unlike the Tony Awards, for Broadway shows, there is no requirement to prove you have seen the films. Mulligan, nominated for or an Oscar in 2010 for An Education, said that forcing all voting members to watch the films would mean more recognition for female directors.

“I don’t think you can watch those films and not think they deserve recognition,” she said. “Maybe you shouldn’t be allowed to vote unless you can prove you’ve seen every single one. The films that did get left out are indisputably brilliant.”

No women were nominated for best director, and only one non-white person received recognition for acting. g.

Stephen King, the author, also wrote about concerns of bias. “Voters are supposed to look at all films in serious contention. This year, that would be about 60,” he wrote in The Washington Post. “There’s no way of checking how many voters actually do.

“How many of the older, contingent actually saw Harriet, Harriet Tubman, or The Last Man in San Francisco?” isco?”

Amy Pascal, producer of Little Women, noted that twice as many women than men attended early screenings of the film, suggesting that male voters were skipping it.

The situation is not new. In 92 years, only five women have been nominated for best director, and only one has won – Kathryn Bigelow, in 2010, with The Hurt Locker.

Women made up p 10.6 per cent of the directors of the top p 100 grossing movies from 2019, according ording to the University of Southern California’s alifornia’s Annenberg Inclusion Initiative e – the highest since it began tracking the he data in 2007.

Alma Har’el, the e Israeli-American director, suggested creating two director awards, in male and nd female categories.

“The status quo o will always protect itself by getting women and underrepresented filmmakers makers to play a game they can’t win – by y making us believe that anything other er than breaking into the white boys’ club is failure,” she said.

Greta Gerwig, who is nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay for Little Women, remains sanguine: “The directors’ branch could probably stand to bolster its lady numbers. This will go to the top of my to-do list!”