A story in The Hollywood Reporter offers a stinging critique of Academy Award voters.
The biggest snub from this year’s Academy Award nominations?
Al Gore’s climate change film “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power” failed to score a Best Documentary nomination. The 2006 original, by comparison, snared the coveted trophy in that category.
Otherwise, today’s Oscar news offered few surprises. Gary Oldman will fight for the Best Actor Oscar for his superlative turn in “Darkest Hour.” “The Post’s” Meryl Streep earned another Oscar nomination – her 21st.
“Get Out” shouldered past the Academy’s aversion to horror with several key nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director (Jordan Peele).
Yet a feature from The Hollywood Reporter published earlier this month reveals the sad truth behind the Academy Awards. Politics continue to play an outsized role in deciding Oscar winners.
“Oscars: How Real-World Events Could Impact the Foreign-Language Race” forecasts one category in the annual event. The story’s angle? It’s all about Trump.
Anti-Trump sentiment over the so-called Muslim ban arguably powered Iran’s ‘The Salesman’ to its 2017 Oscar, and global political fault lines could rock this year’s contenders.
Wait. What about art? Acting? Storytelling?
Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel — a move resoundingly rejected in a vote by the U.N. General Assembly — adds another twist. Will Academy voters view support for Foxtrot as tacit support for Trump’s Middle East politics?
It’s a similar issue with Loveless, from Russian auteur Andrey Zvyagintsev. Few in the Academy would want to be seen supporting Moscow or Vladimir Putin, especially with the ongoing investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign ahead of the 2016 election.
This isn’t a random blog entry from a neophyte film reporter. The Hollywood Reporter stands as one of the top industry publications, if not the preeminent chronicler of film news.
So how does that impact potential Oscar winners?