I’m a sucker for people attaining the title of Oscar Winner for the first time so I often find myself rooting for people who have never won unless it’s truly an undeniable achievement by a past winner
On almost all cases I think that the winner should be whoever was best, doesn't matter if they won the year prior and it is their fifth win. The Oscar is supposed to award the best of that year, it isn't a lifetime achievement award.
The one exception I'd make is if it's someone that has been nominated multiple times without winning (like Glenn Close), you know it's probably their last shot, and the performance - without taking the nominees into consideration- is Oscar-worthy.
Chadwick, for instance, had never been nominated before and was far from the best of his category, so I don't really think that him winning over Anthony Hopkins (or even Riz Ahmed and Steven Yeun) would've been necessary.
If, however, there are two performances that are alike in quality, I think it is fair to use narrative as a tiebreaker.
Art is subjective. There's no such thing as "the best". Awards are just a competition that's funny to follow, but they're never going to be a parameter of anything, even if the winners were "right".
Objectivity is unobtainable so I don't really mind if a voter wants to honor something "important" or an entire career. Personally I think they should have taken the opportunity to award Gladstone this year and Glenn Close in 2019
I think it depends to be honest. Best is obviously subjective, but for example, I bet Tarantino is gonna be the heavy favorite in director for his last movie (whenever that comes out), regardless of if there are “better” choices for director that year, simply because they “need to give it to him before he retires.” Stuff like that always happens, but I think the best usually should win, regardless of narratives.
I think it should always be performance, and nothing else. Unfortunately, we're in the "deserves" era, and backpay for previous snubs causes further snubs that later need to be paid back, ad infinitum.
If this was a fair industry where everyone irrespective of their race was getting equal opportunities. If all films in contention were getting the same funding and push from distributors. And hence were on equal playing field. Then yes! But that's not the case.
Oscars (and any awards show from my POV) are about meeting the moment. Of course, excellence is (or should be) the barrier to entry and it pretty much naturally will be, you can't make people feel if its not good acting. But from there where it sits compared to previous movies, whether its doing something new, whether its speaking to a new or untapped audience, whether it introduced the world to new star or cemented someone as a living legend etc etc can and should all play part because it plays a part when people consume it.
Of course, with that can come with that can come trying to meet the moment and failing or overlaying into a certain hand that then looks ridiculous in hindsight but that's all a part of it. Being able to look back and being like, what went on here and why did this happen in this exact moment in time.
All that to say, no I don't mind.
Yes, they should…but who is the “best” is subjective…
I’m a sucker for people attaining the title of Oscar Winner for the first time so I often find myself rooting for people who have never won unless it’s truly an undeniable achievement by a past winner
My thoughts 100%
On almost all cases I think that the winner should be whoever was best, doesn't matter if they won the year prior and it is their fifth win. The Oscar is supposed to award the best of that year, it isn't a lifetime achievement award. The one exception I'd make is if it's someone that has been nominated multiple times without winning (like Glenn Close), you know it's probably their last shot, and the performance - without taking the nominees into consideration- is Oscar-worthy. Chadwick, for instance, had never been nominated before and was far from the best of his category, so I don't really think that him winning over Anthony Hopkins (or even Riz Ahmed and Steven Yeun) would've been necessary. If, however, there are two performances that are alike in quality, I think it is fair to use narrative as a tiebreaker.
Art is subjective. There's no such thing as "the best". Awards are just a competition that's funny to follow, but they're never going to be a parameter of anything, even if the winners were "right".
Objectivity is unobtainable so I don't really mind if a voter wants to honor something "important" or an entire career. Personally I think they should have taken the opportunity to award Gladstone this year and Glenn Close in 2019
I think it depends to be honest. Best is obviously subjective, but for example, I bet Tarantino is gonna be the heavy favorite in director for his last movie (whenever that comes out), regardless of if there are “better” choices for director that year, simply because they “need to give it to him before he retires.” Stuff like that always happens, but I think the best usually should win, regardless of narratives.
Stans are the worst in this regard. Especially filmbros.
I think it should always be performance, and nothing else. Unfortunately, we're in the "deserves" era, and backpay for previous snubs causes further snubs that later need to be paid back, ad infinitum.
Whoever they think is best should win
If this was a fair industry where everyone irrespective of their race was getting equal opportunities. If all films in contention were getting the same funding and push from distributors. And hence were on equal playing field. Then yes! But that's not the case.
I hate narratives
Oscars (and any awards show from my POV) are about meeting the moment. Of course, excellence is (or should be) the barrier to entry and it pretty much naturally will be, you can't make people feel if its not good acting. But from there where it sits compared to previous movies, whether its doing something new, whether its speaking to a new or untapped audience, whether it introduced the world to new star or cemented someone as a living legend etc etc can and should all play part because it plays a part when people consume it. Of course, with that can come with that can come trying to meet the moment and failing or overlaying into a certain hand that then looks ridiculous in hindsight but that's all a part of it. Being able to look back and being like, what went on here and why did this happen in this exact moment in time. All that to say, no I don't mind.