The post-Academy Awards post.

It came to us in the usual three-hour-plus format.  It began with Chris Rock saying a couple of genuinely incisive things (about racism from ostensibly progressive/liberal Hollywood and the In Memoriam segment being made up of African-Americans killed while on their way to the movies), which became subsumed by Rock's more reactionary side (bad, snide jokes about the nonappearance of boycotters Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith and a "well, you're saying that because you don't have a job" dismissal of people expecting Rock to dare to turn down his first Academy Awards hosting gig in over a decade to show solidarity with #OscarsSoWhite).

It continued with expected acting, directing and cinematography wins.  Taking time to wonder if Inarritu, whenever he wins again, will repeat the cycle of interviews rationalizing his work methods of being harsh to actors, crew, line producers, etc.

It had the moment where Cheryl Boone Isaacs, the AMPAS President, delivered a sort-of-corporatespeak speech which I interpreted as saying:
Each of you represent the Academy.  Don't be afraid to enact diversity when greenlighting movies, hiring actors and choosing crew members.

It had a rare moment when the Vice President of the United States introduced a song from a documentary about rape on college campuses by opining against rape and rape culture.  This is a notable PSA in an industry where young women and men are often viewed by (most often) men in various levels of power as attractive bodies which can be coerced into consensual sex--or, sometimes, raped outright (particularly when the powerful men can ensure few to no consequences for their behavior).

And, finally, as ceremony, it did its best to overcompensate (with appearances by African-American, Latino and Asian actors) for the kind of diversity not often seen on-screen or behind the camera in this year's nominated films.

Between last night and next year, some disgruntled rank-and-file Academy members will leap at the opportunity to continue complaining about Not Getting To Vote on maintaining what they hoped would be eternal Academy membership.

Also, the progressive people who run studios--plus the more conservative folks who work below-the-line on sets may be momentarily chastened, but less than eager to devote detailed thought as to who has a better chance of being hired and what movies get made.

Of course, this could lead to backsliding rationalized by "we have to have a blockbuster slate," "we can't make tentpoles with African-American actors as leads because of prejudice in [insert country here]," "it costs too much to market even mid-budget films," "we have to cast people with massive social media presence," "I don't want quotas in terms of crew hired" and "I didn't see it because they didn't send a screener DVD and the streaming link didn't work."

Safe to guess the hypotheticals listed above will continue as before.  And, alas, increasing the possibility of the hashtag #OscarsSoWhite becoming an annual occurrence.

The pre-Academy Awards post.

1. Mary McNamara, in the LOS ANGELES TIMES, refers to Chris Rock as a cultural arbiter expected to explain #OscarsSoWhite to the national and international viewing audience tonight.  And, apparently, explain it just enough and make enough pointed jokes to make viewers welcome the "carry on as usual" traditional ceremony without having troubling subtextual thoughts.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-critics-notebook-oscars-20160225-column.html

2. Margaret Avery (nominated as a Supporting Actress for playing a lesbian in Steven Spielberg's blanded-out THE COLOR PURPLE, a 1985 release), was interviewed in today's Calendar section of the LA TIMES.  I'm old enough to remember Ms. Avery paying for her own campaign ads and being mocked for their content.
www.altfg.com/film/margaret-avery-dear-god-the-color-purple-22987

The Motion Picture Academy tries to rise above its limitations.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has entered Consecutive Year Two of all-white acting nominations--mentioned quite a bit in the last few days.  And, of course, there's the noticeable failure to recognize independent films not distributed by major studios/studio-run specialty units; this includes Netflix's BEASTS OF NO NATION, Spike Lee's Amazon-backed CHI-RAQ and Roadside Attractions' Brian Wilson biopic LOVE AND MERCY.

Let's take a brief look at the nomination process:

Excerpted from Wikipedia's "Academy Awards" article:

In late December ballots and copies of the Reminder List of Eligible Releases are mailed to around 6,000 active members. For most categories, members from each of the branches vote to determine the nominees only in their respective categories (i.e. only directors vote for directors, writers for writers, actors for actors, etc.). In all major categories, voters use an instant run-off voting ballot, with potential nominees rewarded in the single transferable vote tally for having strong supporters who rank them first.^[34] There are some exceptions in the case of certain categories, like Foreign Film, Documentary and Animated Feature Film, in which movies are selected by special screening committees made up of members from all branches. In the special case of Best Picture, all voting members are eligible to select the nominees for that category. Foreign films must include English subtitles, and each country can submit only one film per year.^[35]

The winners are then determined by a second round of voting in which all members are then allowed to vote in most categories, including Best Picture.^[36]

Thanks in part to the #OscarsSoWhite protests, the Academy recently announced some "we hear you, but we're moving at our own pace" attempts at correction.

http://www.businessinsider.com/who-votes-for-oscars-2016-1

But, as noted by Michael Cieply in THE NEW YORK TIMES--

"....action on possible changes to Oscar balloting was deferred for later consideration."

Likely results of the Academy's wake-up call:

1. Fearful grumbling (with various degrees of racial prejudice exhibited) from rank-and-file Academy members uncomfortable with being pushed into Emeritus no-voting status by not working/not being an Oscar nominee/winner.

2. The number of Best Picture nominees may be set at ten every year, instead of the current "anywhere between five and ten pictures."  This may be the most notable nod to expanding racial diversity and acknowledging popular commercial films (the Academy has done some backsliding on the latter).

3. Unlike what Tom O'Neil of GOLD DERBY proposed recently (a dramatic increase in the number of Academy members), the current Status Quo will only see slight alterations--with future protests being countered with the "we'll get it done by 2020" Academy talking point.

THE NEW YORKER's Richard Brody on the Academy's lack of love for comedy.

Beyond the allegations of racism and rewarding Brand Names for Serious Intentions (Steven Spielberg's BRIDGE OF SPIES doesn't belong on the Best Picture Nominations list), there's the issue of comedy being largely ignored by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

Richard Brody discusses the "comedy doesn't show enough effort/gravitas/Serious Intentions" attitude of the Academy in his NEW YORKER article "The Baffling 2016 Oscar Nominees."

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/the-2016-oscar-nominees

Excerpt:
"The Best Director nominations go to three showy filmmakers (Adam McKay, George Miller, and Alejandro González Iñárritu) and two nearly invisible ones (Tom McCarthy and Lenny Abrahamson). McKay had the oddest inspiration of the five. He applied the freewheeling loopiness of his comedies (notably “Anchorman”) to a political subject, proving once more that comedy gets no respect—most significantly, in the absence of any nominations for “Trainwreck.” Outside of the oddball interpolations of star announcers in “The Big Short,” there’s hardly a giggle or a guffaw in any of the Best Picture nominees. (Leonardo DiCaprio gave one of the greatest comic performances in recent years in “The Wolf of Wall Street”; he’ll likely win an Oscar for his relentlessly grim grind through “The Revenant.”) Comedy that the Academy feels comfortable taking seriously, comedy that comes trademarked as topical—that’s what the members watch on TV or streaming. It’s exactly why the revitalization of big-screen comedy—a job that Judd Apatow took on a decade ago and is attempting all over again—is tougher than ever."

Predicting several 2016 Academy Award winners.

BEST PICTURE: THE MARTIAN
BEST ACTOR: Leonardo DiCaprio, THE REVENANT
BEST ACTRESS: Brie Larson, ROOM
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: Sylvester Stallone, CREED (or, if an upset occurs: Mark Ruffalo, SPOTLIGHT)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Alicia Vikander, THE DANISH GIRL
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY: Emmanuel Lubezki, THE REVENANT
BEST DIRECTOR: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, THE REVENANT
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE: INSIDE OUT
BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE: THE LOOK OF SILENCE
BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM: SON OF SAUL
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY: SPOTLIGHT
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY: THE BIG SHORT