Pitt's character has less screen time than Di Caprio's and it would be pretty dumb for the studio to put them in the same category. Also, best actor was an almost certain win for Phoenix so they would've ended probably with nada.
|Posted: 10 January 2020 at 12:46am | IP Logged | 7
What I did find kinda funny is the movie itself being in the "Musical or Comedy" category of which it is neither. 1917 ended up winning in Best Picture Drama, OUATIH could have won.
It's all about strategy, award-winning is kinda like a sport now. I find it very funny how people do Oscar predictions games with their friends and participate in polls and the such without having seen most of the films themselves. By hype alone and studying how previous award shows went down you could take a pretty accurate guess.
On previous cases, THE MARTIAN being in the "Musical or Comedy" category was ridiculous but, unlike OUATIH, the film had no shot of winning in the Drama category so it was probably a smart decision.
Jamie Foxx in the supporting actor category is probably the most infamous of these moves as he was, without a doubt, the lead character and delivered a brilliant performance.
Travolta and SLJ I don't find that egregious. SLJ had much less screen time than Travolta, not three or four minutes. Remember, the whole Mia Wallace part is with Travolta alone, and also the showdown with Butch. SLJ has no scenes without Travolta along, if I'm not misremembering.
I like Gervais generally and some of his jokes landed (especially the ones involving Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein) but I'm finding his Golden Globes "character" a bit tired and forced now. Still, he made a good point about actors being in no position to get preachy and lecture-y as they work with some of the most harmful and unethical people and corporations in the world and have a very distorted lens from which to analyze the world's problems. Of course, they still did it. They just can't resist, can they?