The online discourse around the Barbie "snubs" is annoying.

[Dave Gray]

Margot Robbie didn't get nominated for best actress.
Greta Gerwig didn't get nominated for best director.

People who don't watch these nominated movies and don't understand how Oscar season works seem to be the loudest voices, somehow tying this to sexism or patriarchy or even the themes in Barbie.  It's all so tiring.

[Fau Teixeira]

It's the internet, people are always outraged about anything and everything.
Annoying is the most kind way to refer to this.

[Spider-Dan]

It's not just that they didn't get nominated.  It's that the cast member who did get nominated was... the guy who played Ken.
Surely you can understand the symbolism there.

If the only cast member who got an Oscar nomination in Black Panther was the white guy, you would see similar outcry.

[Dave Gray]

I can't handle it.

Barbie was nominated for 8 things.  INCLUDING Gerwig and Robbie in other categories.  Yes, one of those noms was a man, in a weaker category with way less competition.

Also, Ken is the standout performance with all of the fun scenes, and Barbie is the more subdued, almost "straight man" performance.

These are outraged people who don't understand how any of this shit works.  A group of Margot Robbie's peers picked other people instead.  It's not that deep.  They chose Annette Benning instead.  It's not like they picked a man.

[Spider-Dan]

Barbie was nominated for 8 things.  INCLUDING Gerwig and Robbie in other categories.  Yes, one of those noms was a man, in a weaker category with way less competition.

Also, Ken is the standout performance with all of the fun scenes, and Barbie is the more subdued, almost "straight man" performance.

The "other categories" you mention are Gerwig for "Best Adapted Screenplay" (no one cares) and Robbie as executive producer on the Best Picture nomination.

Seriously Dave, you don't see why people are surprised that in a Barbie movie, the actor who played Ken is getting more shine at the Oscars than the actress who played Barbie?

A group of Margot Robbie's peers picked other people instead.  It's not that deep.  They chose Annette Benning instead.  It's not like they picked a man.

First, they aren't allowed to pick a man for "Best Actress."  But second, if they had to pick one outstanding performance from the film... well, you just said the standout performance was Ken, not Barbie.  So it seems like you would have picked a man to represent the best performance in the movie, if the choice were up to you.

You are trying to drive in two simultaneous lanes, and you should pick one.  You're trying to say that no one is comparing Margot Robbie to Ryan Gosling, but then you immediately follow that by saying that Gosling had the better performance and deserved the nom.

[Dave Gray]

The "other categories" you mention are Gerwig for "Best Adapted Screenplay" (no one cares) and Robbie as executive producer on the Best Picture nomination.

Uh...people care.  Best screenplay is a big deal.  The people on Facebook don't care because they're only here to be mad for one day about shit they don't follow until they get to soapbox about it.

Seriously Dave, you don't see why people are surprised that in a Barbie movie, the actor who played Ken is getting more shine at the Oscars than the actress who played Barbie?

I'm not surprised.  And that's why I'm frustrated.  It's people who don't understand what they're mad about and don't follow these things or how the Academy works or how nominations work or what they mean.

if they had to pick one outstanding performance from the film... well, you just said the standout performance was Ken, not Barbie.  So it seems like you would have picked a man to represent the best performance in the movie, if the choice were up to you.

There's a lot to unpack here.  They don't have to pick one performance per film.  So that hypothetical is valueless.  But if you did, it wouldn't be acting or any of that.  It would probably be script.  But I do think that Ken is the more standout performance of the two -- not because Gosling is a better actor, but because the script is designed that way.  But it doesn't even matter because it's not Barbie vs. Ken.  Also, Gosling legitimately has a chance to WIN best supporting actor (I think it will be RDJ, but Gosling is close).  Robbie never had a shot at best actress.  The role isn't meaty enough.  Comedies don't traditionally do great for best actor/actress (the actors guild likes a big drama).  Also, movies that do very well financially are often "punished" for things like Best Picture/Best Director/Best Actor&Actress.

There's also way more at play.  Actress is a stacked field this year.  Supporting actress and actor are much weaker.

Like politics, Oscar noms come two ways: 1) In it to win it, which is Emma Stone and Lilly Gladstone and 2) where the nomination is the award.  Just like you have a bunch of people on the GOP stage that have no chance of winning, but they still can bring influence, jobs in the cabinet, prepare for the future, run to cable-news, etc.   ...oscars are the same way.  Sometimes they nominate an old favorite (John Williams, Diane Warren, Annette Benning) that they admire as a peer.  Sometimes it's a newcomer who can do well from the exposure.  Sometimes it's a "lifetime achievement" nomination, where you're getting a nomination (or even a win) for movies you did long ago.  There's a lot at play.

Robbie has already been nominated, so this nom didn't matter for her career.

Meanwhile, even more at play -- You need coattails to get into Best Picture.  Barbie has plenty (8 nominations, a bunch of other short-lists, precursors, etc.  ...it was a shoe-in)  Anatomy of a Fall was on everyone's top 10 lists, but needed other ways in.  Foreign films can't get nominated unless their country picks them and France (for whatever reason) is notorious for picking the wrong movie, so Anatomy of a Fall wasn't eligible.  Therefore, people in the academy who support that movie had to prop it up in other categories in order to justify it for best picture.  It's just politics at play, and Robbie and Gerwig (neither whom had any chance of winning) paid that price.


All that said, I would've voted for both Gerwig and Robbie be in the top 5 of each of their categories and I loved Barbie (and Gosling too, but not Ferrera).  But it's not about the 5 most-worthy performances and never has been.  It's about politics and picking lanes and positioning for wins and spreading the love and highlighting the lesser-known...it's 500 things and none of them are misogyny.  While mildly surprising, this shouldn't come as a complete shock to anyone who pays attention to these things, which I do.

I really wish that, in this one particular case, you'd just believe me when I tell you that I know what I'm talking about.  This shit is an unhealthy obsession for me that I follow all year around and I've personally watched all of these performances.  It would be like me trying to school you in some surface-level Facebook conversation about fighting games.

[Spider-Dan]

Uh...people care.  Best screenplay is a big deal.  The people on Facebook don't care because they're only here to be mad for one day about shit they don't follow until they get to soapbox about it.

I'm not surprised.  And that's why I'm frustrated.  It's people who don't understand what they're mad about and don't follow these things or how the Academy works or how nominations work or what they mean. [...]

I really wish that, in this one particular case, you'd just believe me when I tell you that I know what I'm talking about.  This shit is an unhealthy obsession for me that I follow all year around and I've personally watched all of these performances.  It would be like me trying to school you in some surface-level Facebook conversation about fighting games.

I'm not denying or disputing any of the inside baseball stuff you're talking about.  I'm saying that the laypeople complaining about this - the people who literally don't care about "Best Adapted Screenplay" and couldn't name a single winner in that category, ever - see "Supporting male in Barbie movie gets nom, but female lead and female director don't" and immediately sideeye.

To reuse my hypothetical, there might be a bunch of really complex, technical industry details on why a black director and black lead of Black Panther don't get a nom, but the white supporting actor does.  I get the inside baseball explanation.  But if it had happened, laypeople (i.e. not film industry experts) would lose their shit.  They just would.

[Dave Gray]

I'm not disputing that in your hypothetical situation that didn't happen, people would be mad.

And yes, laypeople are the ones fuming that don't watch movies or Oscars or know what the fuck they're talking about and it's embarrassing and cringey to those of us who do, which was why I started this thread in the first place.

If you are one of the laypeople that's mad about this, I'm telling you, as a non layperson, that you shouldn't be.  Sure, be disappointed that they missed -- I loved both of them and would've liked to have seen them there.  But it's not deeper than that and there is no larger patriachical connection.

It also seems to discount holding up the woman of color who was nominated while making tears for the white ladies.

[Spider-Dan]

I'm not disputing that in your hypothetical situation that didn't happen, people would be mad.

But you agree they would be mad for the same reasons they are today, right?

It also seems to discount holding up the woman of color who was nominated while making tears for the white ladies.

"Best Supporting Actress" ain't "Best Actress."

[Dave Gray]

But you agree they would be mad for the same reasons they are today, right?

Yes.  People who don't follow this stuff would be mad.  They were mad last year when a black woman was passed over for Best Actress.  They're gonna be mad about everything because they're ignorant and uninformed.



This is just Dunning Kreuger, man.  You of all people I would hope can appreciate that the laypeople shouldn't be the loudest people in the room.

[Spider-Dan]

See, here's where we're going to have a hard disagreement:

The film critique industry you're talking about - and not just film critique, but music critics, video game reviews, the entirety of the entertainment critic industry as a whole - it's all bullshit, all of it.  It's no different than the talking heads on ESPN yammering on about the heart of a champion or whatever the fuck.  It's all a bunch of pretentious assholes telling people that if they enjoy the wrong kind of entertainment, they are ignorant and uncultured.  This isn't Dunning Krueger because, unlike climate science or epidemiology, entertainment critique is entirely subjective.

So that's why I, personally, don't get worked up about who the Oscars do and don't nominate.  It's all symbolic, designed to reinforce whatever subjective opinion the Academy wants to propagate about true cinema.  But I understand why people who still buy into the Oscar bullshit are dismayed by the Barbie noms.

[Dave Gray]

^ I don't disagree with you about any of that, but that's not what the Oscars is.  It's essentially a trade show, where they are voting on awards to give themselves and the awards are based on a lot of factors.  It's a lot about patting each other on the back and getting funding for future projects and stuff like that.  It's not indicative of what's a good movie or not.

[Spider-Dan]

So you're saying that the "Best Picture" Oscar is not intended to confer (or even imply) to the greater public the prestige of the best movie released that year?

The Emmys, the Grammys, the Golden Globes, the Video Game Awards, etc... they are obviously supposed to indicate the quality of a given product.  That's how the entire public sees them (even if they don't agree with the choices).  But you're saying they're just industry trade show awards that aren't intended to convey merit to the public at all?  Come on, man.  That is entirely at odds with the way these awards are depicted in society.  It's like saying that MVP/Pro Bowl/All Star etc. awards aren't meant to convey to the public which players are good, but are merely industry awards to intended to facilitate certain collectively-bargained contract bonuses.

[Dave Gray]

So you're saying that the "Best Picture" Oscar is not intended to confer (or even imply) to the greater public the prestige of the best movie released that year?

It's not really that simple.  It certainly isn't "most enjoyable" movie.  Best is subjective already.  I think that this body is choosing the best picture FOR THEM and their style, but that rarely matches up with the general public.  Often times, the movies they pick to be nominated aren't really artistically accessible to the masses.

I think they are working on changing that a little bit.