2020 Academy Award Winners

[Bobby Henderson]

The continuing struggle for the exhibition industry though, is obviously their dependence on the studios that bring them their movies. And it's that part that's struggling much more than the theater industry itself.

Content from movie studios and how they distribute that content is the really big problem. The movie theaters can do only so much. They're almost powerless to steer the studios in a more positive direction.

American movie studios and their parent companies are totally fixated on making quick, short-term bursts of cash. So they've been speeding up the natural life cycle of a movie release. In running the show like some ADHD teen who lost his Ritalin supply these guys are slowly cutting their own throats. And they're risking taking commercial movie theaters down with them. If things get bad enough the theater chains will have to take more chances showing unconventional content not from a typical major Hollywood studio.

Earlier it was stated movie-going per capita has gone from 4.54 visits per year in 2000 to 3.4 in 2019. That would make current ticket sales numbers 74.8% of what they were nearly 20 years ago. That's a fairly significant decline. Now compound that with the revenue picture on home video. Since 2008 DVD sales have declined 86%. Streaming platforms have seen a lot of growth, up to $12.9 billion. But DVD sales at its peak in 2005 was over $16 billion. Blu-ray sales peaked in 2013 at $2.37 billion, nowhere near enough to offset declines of DVD sales. Blu-ray sales fell to $1.8 billion in 2018 and continue to fall.

The growing number of streaming services (Disney+, Peacock, HBO Max and Apple TV+ to go along with Netflix, Prime Video, Hulu, etc) may do more to fracture an already limited and fickle market than attract more viewers and grow revenue. What will the studios do if things start getting tight? They'll probably shorten the theatrical release window even more -as if it's not brief enough as it is!

Personally I still see movies at the theater from time to time, at least more than 3 or 4 visits per year. But my movie disc buying habits have pretty much dropped off to nothing. I don't buy virtual "digital download" movies. Very often if I don't see a movie at the theater I'm just not going to pay directly to see it. I might watch it if it arrives on HBO, Netflix or whatever. I can't remember the last time I rented a physical Blu-ray disc. Lawton is down to just one video rental store, Family Video out on the West side of town.

Sounds like the teachers at a certain London school should be watching Hair Love...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-45521094

That reminds me of the news story from a couple years ago when a black high school student in New Jersey was given a choice by a referee prior to a wrestling match: cut off his dreadlocks or forfeit the match. The 16-year old intended to cover his hair with a cap (which is permitted by state rules) but was not allowed to do so. The student's coaches protested. An "injury time clock" was started to give a countdown to forfeit. So the kid let a team trainer do a quick, half-ass haircut to satisfy this total asshole of a ref.

Video of the haircut went viral, naturally. The ensuing public outrage invited a microscope onto the referee. In 2016 the same ref agreed to go through "sensitivity training" and an alcohol abuse program after reportedly using the N-bomb toward another official. Obviously this ref has a problem with black people.

[Leo Enticknap]

I got so sick and tired hearing about how Greta Gerwig was snubbed for directing Little Women, which is a fine movie that is competently directed, no more.

Same thing with Ava DuVernay and Selma, though in that case, those who thought that it should have won best picture and/or best director got to complain about two -isms for the price of one. Furthermore, the direction was only just competent, and the movie was clearly recognizable as an apprentice piece to anyone who has any significant knowledge of the craft skills of filmmaking. The crowd scene on the bridge was well done, but she really struggled to make the interaction between characters believable in the smaller scale scenes. Even the basics, e.g. eyeline matching, were ragged in places. And as for Tom Wilkinson frequently lapsing into a Yorkshire accent while trying to portray George Wallace ... well, I guess DuVernay can't be blamed for that!

[Mark Ogden]

If you will recall just a few years ago, the Academy tried to do just that when they announced that a "Best Popular Film" category would be added to the Oscars in addition to Best Picture. It never happened because the idea was almost immediately hooted off the table, it would have reduced the Best Picture winners to "Least Unpopular Arthouse Film" and "Most Profitable Fanservice Movie", diminishments that nobody would want to be recognized for.

It is getting hard to watch the show with all its furious chest-pounding about inclusion. I got so sick and tired hearing about how Greta Gerwig was snubbed for directing Little Women, which is a fine movie that is competently directed, no more. If she was snubbed for doing such a workmanlike job, then James Mangold got a full-on screwing for Ford v. Ferrari, a truly exciting and well crafted picture. This is what is killing the Oscars for me, people whining about left out because they perceive themselves as being a member of an under-represented minority, as opposed to being left out because the job they did was not that remarkable. These people won't be happy until the the whole thing is reduced to Everybody Gets An Oscar Night, where you walk into the Dolby Theatre and find an Oscar statue right under your seat. Maybe they could get Oprah Winfrey to host.

[Leo Enticknap]

That's even considering the fact the same actors re-did their own lines in English for the dubbed version.

That's been tried as an alternative to dubbing periodically since the 1930s. Around the time of the conversion to sound, the British and German producers Michael Balcon and Erich Pommer did a number of joint co-productions whereby the same sets and script were used, but a different set of actors for the English and German versions, and for some of them, different directors as well. The idea was to reduce production costs and thus make European movies competitive with Hollywood, but political factors that emerged in the late '20s to mid '30s (not just the obvious one, but protectionist legislation regulating the import of foreign films that sprung up in most western European countries around that time, too) killed the idea off.

The Oscars are not supposed to represent the most popular films.

True, and I wasn't arguing that this should be the only criterion for the awards. But in order for the Oscars to remain an effective storefront for the mainstream movie industry, they can't go too far in the direction of celebrating minority interest art movies and/or political/ideological polemics. I would suggest that every best picture winner since Birdman in 2014 has been either or both. And some, e.g. Moonlight and The Shape of Water, have been such minority interest films that only regular attenders of arthouse theaters had even heard of them before they won the award. If the Oscars wants to avoid becoming an event that only industry insiders take any notice of, AMPAS members have to strike a balance between voting on the basis of virtue signaling, and voting for movies that a significant chunk of the public have seen or would like to see.

The continuing struggle for the exhibition industry though, is obviously their dependence on the studios that bring them their movies. And it's that part that's struggling much more than the theater industry itself.

Exactly. And my earlier point was that if traditional Hollywood (apart from Disney) proves itself unable to provide theaters with popular movies, theaters will look for them elsewhere, a task that digital projection and the ability to play what Hollywood disparagingly calls "alternative content" (by which they mean anything Hollywood didn't make, basically), has made significantly easier than it was in even the recent past.

[Allan Young]

I haven't seen all the other nominated shorts in that category, but I thought Hair Love was a pretty decent animated short. Not a pile of crap at all. But I think I relate to the subject matter better, given my experience with dating black women. Generally speaking I think most white people have no idea at all how much work and expense black people (and black women in particular) have to put into their hair. I didn't really know about those issues until I got a more personal look at it. Us white folks have it comparatively easy with our hair. We can get our hair wet and wash it all the time without worrying so much about breakage and other damage. We don't have to sleep with our hair protected by some cap, scarf or other covering. With that stuff in mind it's more understandable for the little girl and dad in the animated short to feel overwhelmed by her hair situation. It felt like the theme of Hair Love was the little girl learning to like her hair and take pride in it rather than hate it. Her hair is part of who she is. But to each his own. The short movie can be seen on YouTube for anyone to judge for themselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNw8V_Fkw28

Sounds like the teachers at a certain London school should be watching Hair Love...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-45521094

A pupil who was repeatedly sent home from school because of her afro hair wants to make sure it doesn't happen to any other UK schoolchild.

Ruby Williams received £8,500 in an out-of-court settlement after her family took legal action against The Urswick School in east London.

She was told her hair breached policy, which stated that "afro style hair must be of reasonable size and length".

The school did not accept any liability.

Ruby told Radio 1 Newsbeat she wants UK schools to have "better guidelines on their uniform policy so that people can't be discriminated against when they're walking into school".

"I'd also like to hope that this story gives confidence to those who might be staying quiet about a similar situation," Ruby added.

[Marcel Birgelen]

In 2019, movies per capita in North America was around 3.4. That sounds low, but it wasn't all the much higher before streaming and even before home video, unless we return to the era before TV. It was 3.9 in 2010, 4.54 in 2000, 4.29 in 1990, 4.07 in 1980, and 5.42 in 1964. In 1950, before TV was ubiquitous, it was 17.16 and in 1946, the biggest year ever for the movie business, it was an astonishing 29.36.

While it's not "the end of the world", going from 4.54 in 2000 to 3.4 in a little less than two decades is still a considerable reduction, especially in a low-margin business like the exhibition industry. Also, the limited population growth in a market like the U.S. will not offset that reduction. That's why you see the industry trying to improve their margin by offering extra services, that considerably bump the margin per customer. Stuff like "VIP seating", "LPF", full-dinner options, etc.

While I agree with Mike, the theater industry isn't dead, it's still important to keep in the back of your mind that the landscape keeps changing and probably at a faster pace than it did before. If you're the only one serving in a rather isolated market, time might be of the advantage to you, but if you're in a crowded market, it's clear that you need to continue to invest into some (not all) of the later trends to not lose to the competition.

The continuing struggle for the exhibition industry though, is obviously their dependence on the studios that bring them their movies. And it's that part that's struggling much more than the theater industry itself. I agree with Leo that the recent Oscars are just a writing on the wall. Hollywood is fading. While Disney did have a record-breaking year, let's not forget that this happened primarily due to one VERY big success and by simply being the biggest elephant in the room. If you look at the performance of Hollywood as a whole, I think you have to acknowledge that stuff simply isn't looking all that rosy at the moment.

But I think that at the core, there is still that thing that Mike pointed at: As long as Hollywood (or someone else) produces movies that people actually want to see, you'll still see people to go out and flock to the movie theaters. But that also implies that they're released there first.

The Irishman, which was mentioned earlier, is a good example. My personal belief is that part of not getting any good result at the Oscars may be the AMPAS members holding a grudge over this production largely bypassing Hollywood. Also, I don't think this is anywhere near Scorsese's best work. But had this movie seen a broad release in theaters, with a normal release window, I'm sure it would've done pretty well. It might not have been an Avengers movie, but I'm pretty sure it would've marked the Top 5 in many markets.

[Mike Blakesley]

That last paragraph of yours is just what I keep saying.... considering the fact that the "media" keeps on hammering the non-truth that the theater industry is dead (or dying), and despite the fact that there are a zillion more entertainment options than there were even a decade ago, and despite the ever-shrinking video window, people still like to go to the movies in droves when there is a good movie to see.

[Martin Brooks]

The Oscars always were and always will be kind of boring unless one is very into the particular stars or films involved. As far as the Oscars go, I thought this year's version was okay. They attempted to incorporate some "entertainment" into the show more like what the show was decades ago, but with less tackiness now. I think Janelle Monáe is incredibly talented and she sang live, which is very unusual when choreography is involved. I can't stand it when singers lip-synch on these types of shows.

Ratings will continue to drop because the audience is so fragmented. Ratings are dropping for every single show on broadcast TV. All the late night shows combined have a lower rating than a weak night of the Tonight Show when Carson hosted it. In fact, the combined ratings are probably lower than even Dick Cavett's ratings, which were always low.

The Oscars are not supposed to represent the most popular films. If that was the case, they wouldn't need voting - they could just give out the awards based upon box office take and there are the People's Choice Awards that cover popularity. So the fact that there was inconsistency between the winners and popularity didn't bother me. And Parasite has taken in $186 million worldwide, which is amazing for a Korean film.

Considering all the myriad ways one can now see a movie, I actually think Hollywood is doing quite well, even from a theatrical audience perspective. Having said that, I think Hollywood is fooling itself (or the streaming companies are fooling themselves) if they think every household is going to subscribe to five or more streaming services. And I think retention is going to be a big issue. Disney+ will probably do well because a large portion of films will be theirs and Amazon will do well by virtue of it being melded with Prime, but I think many of the others, including Apple, are going to have problems.

In 2019, movies per capita in North America was around 3.4. That sounds low, but it wasn't all the much higher before streaming and even before home video, unless we return to the era before TV. It was 3.9 in 2010, 4.54 in 2000, 4.29 in 1990, 4.07 in 1980, and 5.42 in 1964. In 1950, before TV was ubiquitous, it was 17.16 and in 1946, the biggest year ever for the movie business, it was an astonishing 29.36.

[Frank Cox]

I actually don't even notice subtitles when I watch a movie. The first minute or two... oh, subtitles. Then after that I just read along and my experience is no different than watching any other movie.

Subtitles, no subtitles.... meh. Just give me a good movie.

[Bobby Henderson]

Maybe the biggest reason I skipped much of the Oscars telecast is the whole "format" of the show just seems outdated. The show is like a relic more at home in the long lost era of prime time variety TV shows -like the Carol Burnett show. This awards show (like a number of others in the entertainment industry) has been political for a long time. It's nothing new for some self-righteous yet out of touch rich entertainer to tell us how we should all be living from his high perch. It is still annoying though. To me the thing that's wearing thin is all the badly written, badly delivered attempts at comedy (or whatever) by the various presenters reading from teleprompters. Some of the stuff is really cringe-inducing. One image of Billie Eilish reacting painfully to a lame comedy moment from the telecast has been going viral. To be fair I was cringing a little at how Billie Eilish mumbled her way through her rendition of Yesterday during the In Memoriam segment (which succeeding at pissing off lots of people).

"Parasite" provided the few surprises of the night. Most of the other "winners" were pretty much known already before the telecast began. With suspense lacking all viewers can do is watch the live music numbers and montage clips. The stage design (and LED-based 'jumbotron" technology built into it) seemed pretty cool and likely pretty expensive. That's not enough to carry a 3+ hour awards show though.

I agree the version of the "Hollywood" movie industry as we know it is indeed in trouble. This stale, corporate Save The Cat! template-driven model where they sell the same fucking idea over and over again is not going to work forever. Maybe modest yet notable success of Parasite is a wake up call for that.

I thought it a straw in the wind when the Mexican movie Hazlo como hombre was attracting lines of cars stretching out of the lot at my local multiplex, while none of the Hollywood pictures playing in the other screens were doing much business. Even people who were nervous about the idea of dealing with subtitles were willing to give it a try. It looks like this trend is accelerating.

I think the American general public is softening its stance on subtitles. Or maybe it's a sign of changing demographics and generational differences. I, for one, can't stand watching movies that are dubbed. Das Boot is one of my favorite war movies and I very much prefer watching the original German language version and reading the English subtitles. The performances are more real and it's just more authentic listening to German U-boot crewmen speak to each other in German. That's even considering the fact the same actors re-did their own lines in English for the dubbed version.

Funny thing: I think streaming services like Netflix are helping non-English language shows find wider audiences and making shows with subtitles more acceptable. Narcos and Narcos:Mexico have both been popular on Netflix. Viewers spend much of that series reading English subtitles. And I'm glad the subtitles are there. Because half the time the actors are mumbling the hell out of their lines! If they were speaking English I'd want subtitles!

[Mike Blakesley]

I wonder if the Oscars show got much publicity this year. Usually I will check into the website from time to time to see what the winners are. (I gave up on watching the actual show years ago, when it stopped being remotely entertaining.) This year, the fact that was even on completely escaped me...my wife told me around 9:30 that it was on.

[Leo Enticknap]

IMHO, this crop of results demonstrate that Hollywood is in significant trouble. Apart from Joker and Toy Story 4, none of the major Oscar winners were among the top ten domestic box office draws, and the AMPAS voting members thought that the entire output of their domestic industry was of such poor quality that, for the first time, they voted a movie from a non-English speaking country as best picture, and very deservedly so from everything I've read about it (though I haven't been able to see Parasite as yet).

Most of the movies that did win the major awards have three common denominators: they addressed politically correct talking points (Marriage Story, Jojo Rabbit, Little Women): they were critically acclaimed, and the moviegoing public largely stayed away. Then you have the hectoring political speeches and the record low TV ratings (not just that, but almost 20% down on the previous record low!) for the Oscars show itself, and it's hard to escape the conclusion that Hollywood in general and the Oscars in particular might wish to consider adopting F-T's "no politics" rule, if they wish to stop the flow of moviegoers looking to other countries, and domestic disrupters, for their entertainment. I thought it a straw in the wind when the Mexican movie Hazlo como hombre was attracting lines of cars stretching out of the lot at my local multiplex, while none of the Hollywood pictures playing in the other screens were doing much business. Even people who were nervous about the idea of dealing with subtitles were willing to give it a try. It looks like this trend is accelerating.

[Bobby Henderson]

Netflix and Amazon both are spending many billions of dollars creating or licensing content. I think Amazon has kind of an unfair advantage in that the company can use its movie business as a sort of loss leader for its far larger retail business. It's going to be interesting to see what happens over the next few years as all these different streaming platforms compete against each other.

I think the biggest loser in the short term is going to be traditional pay TV services from cable/satellite providers. People in my own viewing market (Lawton-Wichita Falls) are dumping Dish Network in droves. Dish hasn't carried HBO in like a couple years now due to what seems like a permanent dispute. Some other "basic cable" channels are missing. Others disappear for awhile and then return (like Viacom's networks). Dish recently dropped our local Fox TV network channel, just in time for NFL playoffs and the Super Bowl. So many are jumping to Hulu Live, YouTube TV and other streaming alternatives. Hulu Live costs about half what a basic "Top 120" channel package costs from Dish.

I was pulling for "1917" to win for Best Picture but am not surprised that it didn't -- I was surprised that "Parasite" won though.

I, for one, am really surprised 1917 didn't win. That's because 1917 did win the Producer's Guild of America award for Best Picture. More often that not the movie that wins the PGA award also wins the Best Picture Oscar. Additionally 1917 Director, Sam Mendes won the Directors Guild of America award for Best Director. Winning both the PGA and DGA awards together would normally make a feature movie a lock for the Best Picture Oscar. Not this time though.

I did get a chance to see "Hair Love" which was included in the Trail Mix a couple weeks ago. I thought it was a pile of crap, but maybe I was in the wrong mood for it. It seemed like a cheap knockoff of a Pixar short film.

I haven't seen all the other nominated shorts in that category, but I thought Hair Love was a pretty decent animated short. Not a pile of crap at all. But I think I relate to the subject matter better, given my experience with dating black women. Generally speaking I think most white people have no idea at all how much work and expense black people (and black women in particular) have to put into their hair. I didn't really know about those issues until I got a more personal look at it. Us white folks have it comparatively easy with our hair. We can get our hair wet and wash it all the time without worrying so much about breakage and other damage. We don't have to sleep with our hair protected by some cap, scarf or other covering. With that stuff in mind it's more understandable for the little girl and dad in the animated short to feel overwhelmed by her hair situation. It felt like the theme of Hair Love was the little girl learning to like her hair and take pride in it rather than hate it. Her hair is part of who she is. But to each his own. The short movie can be seen on YouTube for anyone to judge for themselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNw8V_Fkw28

In 2009 comedian Chris Rock and Jeff Stilson made the documentary Good Hair. That's a pretty educational look about the black hair care/products industry. It's pretty revealing how "white" standards of beauty have driven that business. Those hair straightening products are pretty harsh. You can get a chemical burn from that stuff if too much gets on the scalp. If someone white gets a bad haircut that person can get it fixed in a few weeks. It can literally take years for a black woman to grow her hair out of a botched job, especially if she's getting into her 40's and older. I asked my girlfriend if she thought about wearing her hair natural, if that would be easier. Nope. Just as much work goes into maintaining a natural hairdo.

[Mike Blakesley]

They're also dealing with market fragmentation..... it'd be way better if there was just one service that had all the content, and everybody would get paid based on when their content was viewed. That would probably never work though because Netflix (and the others) need you to pay every month even when you're not watching any of their stuff.... if they only got paid when you watched their content, their model might not work.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Kind of surprising that "The Irishman" got nothing, considering how ga-ga everybody was over that movie. Netflix overall didn't do as well as they did last year.

They lost a lot of popular content in the U.S. to other services and creating own content is a pretty expensive business. With no real cinematic release platform, they have to make that up with new subscriptions, but the market for such services is also finite.

It remains to be seen how well this "flat fee" model keeps on working, before either the model itself implodes or all new content is of such detrimental quality that, eventually nobody cares anymore.