#academy awards discourse

[saveahorserideaneddie]

shifting gears away from 9-1-1 and onto oscars discourse:

above is a list of every Best Actress winner over 40 from the past 25 years, and the age they turned the year that they won. Of those 25 ceremonies, 11 of them awarded a ‘mature’ actress

in the past 15 years, of the 15 actresses who won, only 5 winners were under the age of 40

while it’s true that this notion of hollywood hating in older women is definitely true and a real issue, the notion that it is perpetuated by the oscars is… honestly a but laughable

the reaction to demi moore’s loss has been very strange to me… the people upset the most are arguing that Mikey Madison (25)’s win somehow “proves The Substance right” are missing the fact that in the past two decades, there has been a majority of mature actresses taking home the good trophy; yet all i keep seeing tossed around is that “the oscars are ageist” “they only award younger actresses” “mikey madison didn’t deserve it because she’s too young”

i need yall to hold my hand when i tell you this- the whole point of The Substance was that talent doesn’t have an age, and that a balance of both older and younger is the only way to get what you want, but that that balance is unachievable due to the way society pits women of different ages against each other

if anything- the only thing proving the substance right are the people who are pissed at mikey’s win; you are watering her performance down to her age and her looks (ignoring the phenomenal performance she gave in anora), and creating this fake drama between her and demi moore, simply because demi didn’t win

now don’t get me wrong- i was pretty much firmly in the camp of demi or fernanda being my personal too choices, but even though i may be disappointed that neither of them won, i won’t discount mikey madison’s undeniable talent that she showcased in anora by giving into the societal pressure of having to “pick a side” in a fake conflict between two women of different ages. i can be happy for mikey’s win while simultaneously being disappointed that fernanda or demi didn’t take it, and the same goes for both if them! why are we putting words in this poor woman’s mouth when she has seemed nothing but genuinely happy for mikey (bc, you know, she’s actually a good person who understands it wasn’t personal after she quite literally swept the rest of the season)

at the end of the day, there has been a clear uptick in the amount of mature women winning the Best Actress oscar, not to mention the amount of mature women nominated which is its own separate uptick. the oscars are not ageist because your fav who happens to be over 40 didn’t win, and acting like they are only makes you look foolish, and actually brings attention away from the actual negative actions committed by the academy with this year’s ceremony.

[mad0katsuki]

I regret everything I said about Zoe Zeldaña

[hsslilly-blog]

when claire lost her first oscar nom she did this face ☹️😑 and then people asked her about her reaction and she was like well i thought i deserved to win so obviously i got sad. and then there are tweets and textposts about it and it’s great

[hungriestheidi]

Are there any non f1 academy female drivers you follow/really like? I new and would like to follow some outside of F1A!

YES. PLENTY.

i won't share them all because i can't remember everyone at the top of my head lol, but these are the ladies i think the most of weekly (outside of my beloved f1a)

lilou wadoux <3 french, she's a ferrari factory driver and competes currently in elms. she's an absolute beasssst. and she looks so sweet <3 <3 <3

jamie chadwick. she's currently on my not talking about her too much list because of eh less than ideal comments regarding women's sports (she was under ca*tlyn j*nner's team, got fed her bullshit and for an sponsorship sold her soul pretty much) but i have followed her since 2021 and idk, she's fast and she's working to help girls by working at grassroots level with the karting 'jamie chadwick series'.

i think the positives are to be recognized (her success in different categories is also wonderful for women in motorsport everywhere) while also calling out the transphobic discourse she spewed.

klara andersson!!!!!! rally cross goat, won the overtake of the year award in 2024 and has a collection of podiums and wins on different series. also she's ssoooooooo pretty.

aaaaaaand of course, the iron dames. not much to be said, their success speaks for them

and a friendly reminder from females in motorsport, racing pride and me

[the--blackdahlia]

The Table (Michael Keaton x Reader)

Title: The Table

Summary: You are the hottest thing in Hollywood and up for your first Academy Award

Warnings: Just some anxiety, but it's mainly fluff

For @84reedsy

You had gotten lucky. That’s the only thing you could think of. Your debut feature film had blown up in theaters, and from what you could tell lurking on your Tumblr blog, the fans were making Supernatural levels of fanart and discourse. Your short films had gotten studio attention, and then the screenplay you worked on with your best friend ended up being one of the hottest films of the summer.

You got lucky. In your mind, that was all there was to it.

You were up for best director. Your cast were up for best actor, best actress, best supporting actor, and best supporting actress. There were a few other categories, but the big one, best picture, made you nervous. People at the studio told you it’s an hour to even be nominated, and while you agreed, you were so nervous to see what the panel of voters thought of your work. This could make or break your career.

You walked the read carpet in a dress that cost more than your car payment your first year of college, and heels that made you feel taller than you really were. People yelled at you for your picture, and people kept stopping you to ask you questions. Mainly about “who are you wearing”” and “how much did your dress cost”. Things like that. You remembered seeing this stuff when you’d watch the Oscars back in your youth, but you never expected it to be quite this chaotic flurry.

You were so glad when you finally made it into the Dolby Theater and felt the chaos calm down slightly. You could see there was already a line at the bathroom, so you made a beeline for the bar. After you were handed your drink, you looked around and saw so many celebrities in one place. Ones you had grown up watching and ones you had just discovered recently.

This was your life now, and you weren’t sure if you actually belonged.

“Make sure you eat something before you go in,” Someone to your left spoke. One of your actors from your movie. “The tables are just for show. But at least they let us have water now.”

“Do we have to stay there the whole time? Isn’t this like a three hour show?”

“No, but just make sure if you’re leaving for any reason, it’s not right before your turn,” He chuckled a little. “I was at the SAG awards and Michael Keaton won for best actor and they had to wait on him because he was in the bathroom.”

“Oh my god,” You couldn’t help but laugh. You were glad he was there to help you calm down some.

“Hey, and no matter what we win or lose tonight, I want you to know you’re one of my favorite directors to work with. And I will be first in line at any future casting calls,” He gave you a smile before you walked away. Taking his advice, you grabbed some food and sat to eat while you waited to be let into the actual theater portion.

Before too long, you were seated at a table. You couldn’t see the other table cards due to the wine glasses of water, but you could see yours. Pristine white paper with your name written in golden scroll. You reached out and gently touched it. It was real. This was real. It was almost too much and you were starting to wonder if you could just get someone to accept any awards for you.

“Let’s see, here I am,” A voice spoke behind you. Then the chair next to you was pulled out and a man in a tux settled next to you. Turning to introduce yourself, you gasped. That wasn’t just any man in a tux.

It was Michael Keaton.

“Batman,” You whispered softly, but he heard you and chuckled.

“So you’ve seen my work. I’ve seen yours and loved it,” He held out a hand and you shook it. There was a bit of a linger hold before he pulled your hand to his lips and kissed it gently. “It’s great to meet you Ms. (y/l/n).”

“Please, call me (Y/n) Mr. Keaton…Mr. Douglas…”

“Well, you can just call me Michael,” His smile was infectious and you couldn’t help but smile back.

“I don’t mean to sound rude, but why are you at this table? Shouldn’t you be with the other A-listers?” You asked a little bit later when he moved his wine glass and you saw that, in fact, his name was right there next to yours. He chuckled lowly.

“I’ve never considered myself an A-lister. You ever seen Game 6? Or Quicksand? Yeah, not an A-lister,” He took a sip of his water. “Plus, you’re the hottest thing in Hollywood right now. I would not trade this chair for one between George Clooney and Brad Pitt.”

“I…what?”

“Sweetheart, you must not realize just how popular you are. The last time I saw this happen was when Tim, Tim Burton, made Beetlejuice.”

“T-Thanks!” You quickly grabbed your water and took a sip. “Sorry, just nervous.”

“I was for my first time to,” He winked. “It gets better. Trust me.”

Before too long, the ceremony started. As it got closer to best director, Michael could tell you were nervous. He reached out and gave your hand a squeeze when the category was announced.

“And the nominees for best director are: Rachael Hayes, Sunset in San Francisco; Alex Wayne, Batty; Lorien Toomes, The Vultures Nest; Chica Riker, Love or Money; and (Y/f/n) (Y/l/n), The Happenings of Ghost. And the winner is…” You closed your eyes and held Michael’s hand. You couldn’t hear anything with the blood pumping in your ears. You were just so nervous.

And then you felt him pull your hand.

“You won!” He yelled when you looked at him. “Come on babe!” He took your hand and led you to the stairs. He remembered you complaining about your heels earlier in the ceremony. The next thing you knew, he was leading you up the stairs to the stage, making sure you didn’t fall as you made sure your dress didn’t catch.

“Please stay,” You whispered. He could feel you shaking.

“I’ll be waiting stage left,” He told you before kissing your cheek. “Go get them sweetheart.”

You took a deep breath and went to the microphone. You were just so nervous, never expecting to win. You did your speech to the best of your ability, even taking time to thank Michael for his help before you were played off and headed back towards the stairs. Michael offered you his arm and helped you down.

“Thank you,” You told him when you got back to the table and sat your award down in front of you. That gold statue would sit on your shelf back home with your name plate from the table right next to it. You were an Academy Award winner.

“All I did was help you up and down the stairs,” He chuckled.

“No, you kept me calm. I almost ditched the event. I couldn’t stand the stress. But you helped me.”

“Well, maybe after this, we could go get some dinner. A good winding down. And I know the best late night place in Los Angeles.” Your eyes widened. You had just been invited on a date. With Michael Keaton. Your longtime childhood crush. And all you could do was say…

“Yes. I’d love that.”

[mariacallous]

President Donald Trump’s nominees to lead the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration, Jay Bhattacharya and Marty Makary, are among the editorial board members of a newly launched scientific journal that includes a group of scientists who promoted herd immunity for Covid-19, criticized pandemic-era public health measures, and downplayed the virus.

Some experts are worried that the journal, which has links to the right-wing news site RealClearPolitics, could become a scientific mouthpiece for the Trump administration and a platform that these experts allege could publish dubious research. Dubbed the Journal of the Academy of Public Health, it was cofounded by Bhattacharya, a health economist at Stanford University, and Martin Kulldorff, formerly a professor of medicine at Harvard University and biostatistician at Mass General Brigham. The journal is associated with the newly formed Academy of Public Health.

“This seems like more of a club newsletter than a scientific journal,” says Gigi Gronvall, an immunologist and professor at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

Bhattacharya and Kulldorff were two of the three authors of the “Great Barrington Declaration,” a manifesto published in October 2020—months before a Covid-19 vaccine was widely available in the United States—in response to the Covid pandemic that called for an end to lockdowns and school closures in favor of pursuing a policy they called “focused protection.” It advocated for herd immunity by allowing those at minimal risk to immediately resume life as normal. Bhattacharya and Kulldorff also publicly objected to Covid vaccine mandates, a position Kulldorff claims led to his dismissal from Harvard and Mass General in 2024.

On its website, the Academy of Public Health says it is “an international association of public health scholars, researchers, and practicing professionals in the field of public health and its many specialties.” The Academy and its associated journal are both funded by the Real Clear Foundation, which also owns RealClearPolitics and awarded Bhattacharya its first annual Samizdat Prize in 2023, an award “for journalists, scholars, and public figures who have resisted censorship and stood for truth,” according to the organization. Linda Yaccarino, CEO of X, is among this year’s winners.

In a February 5 press release, the Real Clear Foundation calls the journal “revolutionary,” saying it will publish “cutting-edge, peer-reviewed, and open access research from the world’s leading scholars of epidemiology, vaccinology, global public health, health policy, and related disciplines.” In its bylaws, the Academy of Public Health says only members can publish in the new journal. To join, you must be nominated by a current member.

Articles published so far include a review of a paper examining the association between vaccines and asthma, a critique of Covid vaccine trials, and a study that concluded that masks were not associated with lower Covid case rates. The journal also published an editorial from Kulldorf arguing that in some ways scientific journals “are now hampering rather than enhancing open scientific discourse.”

Carl Bergstrom, a theoretical and evolutionary biologist, believes the journal is part of an ongoing effort to cast doubt around established scientific consensus. “If you can create the illusion that there is not a predominance of opinion that says, vaccines and masks are effective ways of controlling the pandemic, then you can undermine that notion of scientific consensus, you can create uncertainty, and you can push a particular agenda forward,” he says. Peer-reviewed papers, he says, can provide cover to politicians who want to make certain decisions and they can also be used in court.

When reached by phone on Thursday, Kulldorff said Bhattacharya and Makary were approached to be on the editorial board before their nominations by President Trump. “Right now, they are not active members of the board,” he said. (The journal’s website lists Bhattacharya and Makary as “on leave”.) He added that there is “no connection” between the journal and the Trump administration.

Kulldorff told WIRED that the journal will be a venue for open discourse and academic freedom. “I think it’s important that scientists can publish what they think is important science, and then that should be open for discussion, instead of preventing people from publishing,” Kulldorff says.

Kulldorff and Andrew Noymer, an epidemiologist at UC Irvine who has been a proponent of the lab leak theory of Covid’s origin, are named as the journal’s editors in chief. Scott Atlas, who was tapped by Trump to serve on the White House Coronavirus Task Force in 2020, is also named as an editorial board member. Atlas, a radiologist by training, has made false claims that masks don’t work to prevent the spread of coronavirus.

In January, Noymer wrote an op-ed supporting Bhattacharya’s nomination for NIH administrator. In it, he praised Bhattacharya for his open-mindedness to different points of view. That op-ed was published in RealClearPolitics.

Angela Rasmussen, an American virologist and research scientist at the University of Saskatchewan, says she worries that the journal could be used to prop up and legitimize pseudoscientific and anti-public health views. “I don’t think this is going to give them any credit with real scientists. But the public may not know the difference between the Journal of the Academy of Public Health and the New England Journal of Medicine,” she says.

Taylor Dotson, a professor at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology who studies the intersection of science and politics, says there is a “legitimate concern” that the journal could become a repository for evidence that bolsters arguments favored by people in the administration. If confirmed, Bhattacharya and Makary’s boss could potentially be Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s nominee to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, who is known for promoting a wide range of debunked scientific beliefs, including that there is a link between vaccines and autism and that AIDS is not caused by the HIV virus.

Dotson warns that there is a risk that the existence of journals closely aligned with a certain political view might deepen the politicization of science. “The worst-case scenario is you start having the journals for the people who are kind of populist and anti-establishment and the journals for the people who also read NPR and The New York Times.”

The Journal of Public Health is an open-access journal, which means that the articles are free for anyone to access. It also uses open peer review, where the names and comments of scientists who check articles prior to publication are also published along with the article.

“These are good steps,” says Dotson. “It’s good that it is trying to push against the power of the big scientific publishers.” But the researcher also warns that open-access studies might be more prominent and widely cited in the media just because they are easier to find and not because they are necessarily more scientifically rigorous.

Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta, the third author of the “Great Barrington Declaration,” published a controversial paper in March 2020 that argued that half of the UK population may have already been infected with Covid-19. That paper was a preprint that had not been peer-reviewed or published in a scientific journal but was widely shared in the media and within government, despite proving later to be incorrect. Gupta is also on the editorial board of the Journal of the Academy of Public Health.

But ultimately, Dotson says, the journal should be judged by the science it publishes and the editorial decisions of the people in charge. If they encourage their reviewers to be rigorous and publish a wide range of high-quality papers, these should be seen as positive signs. “We need to wait and see, but there are reasons to be worried in our political environment,” Dotson says.

[arhapsodyblueblog-blog]

Emilia Perez a case study of what not to do.

There are different ways to talk about a film. What some find worthy of admiration others find less than favorable.

Today we find ourselves with a film that navigates a fine line that is becoming increasingly invisible, today I find myself here talking about a film that produces nothing but anger and pain in me.

But in spite of everything, I think it is important to talk about the controversy in which Emilia Perez finds itself. I am Latina, I am Mexican and I would like to say that it is more than disgusting to see how the Academy, the Golden Globes, the SAG Awards and the Bafta Awards hold in high esteem a film that has so many identity problems.

Emilia Perez wants to be a musical, but also a critique, it wants to be a portrait of a reality, but it can't stand criticism. This film, while it looks at itself with airs of grandeur, is nothing more than a set of poorly produced clichés that are rather distressing.

The issue is not just that the Spanish they speak leaves much to be desired, or that the songs don't make sense in Spanish or English or the apparent lack of respect for the LGBTQ+ community or the Trans community.

What angers me is the fact that The Academy is behind this project, what anger me, is not only that Jacques Audiard talks about subjects he doesn't even know about or that he makes gestures against Cynthia Elviro. The fact is that the Academy does not care about what people are saying out loud.

Because Emilia Perez is cheap activism. It's what the members of The Academy believe is the right thing to do. Because inside their social bubble tells them that they should do it, regardless of whether it is the right thing to do.

Karla Sofía Gascón, should be more than sorry for what she has said through her social networks, she should keep quiet and not go to war on X. Because and if you do not know it, she and Jacques Audiard, manage a double discourse where in Mexico they say something but in the U.S. and Europe they say something else.

But what do I know, compared to them. I am Latina and Mexican, I see the insecurity and pain in my country that fights daily for the security that we deserve and should have. They are Europeans, who obviously can explain to me more about the problems in my own country.

The ball is in the court of Academy. What are they going to do now that Karla Sofia Gascon has decided to speak out against Fernanda Torres and the Brazilian team of Ainda Estou Aqui (I’m Still Here).

Will they continue to ignore what Emilia Perez's director, Jacques Audiard has said from the beginning? Will they forgive what Karla Sofia Gascon has said, or will they do the right thing for a change?

[russburlingame]

Phil Ochs is A Complete Unknown

While Bob Dylan became a living legend, the era's most earnest folksinger has been largely forgotten

Last week, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced eight Academy Award nominations for A Complete Unknown, a biopic about one of the most exhaustively-documented artists of the 20th Century.

Okay, that’s a joke. I like Bob Dylan as much as the next guy (provided The Next Guy isn’t Ray Padgett, who writes the terrific Substack Flagging Down the Double Es). “A complete unknown” is obviously a lyric from Dylan’s seminal hit “Like a Rolling Stone,” and it’s a clever title.

(Also, the other obvious choice — No Direction Home — is already a book about Dylan by Robert Shelton and a documentary by Martin Scorsese, so it’s pretty well spoken-for.)

But making fun of the title plays nicely into my premise here.

That’s because while I like Dylan as much as the next guy, I like Phil Ochs considerably more than the next guy. And A Complete Unknown has had me thinking a lot about Ochs, and his relationship to Dylan. Not so much their personal relationship — which was tortured and mostly one-sided — but their cultural relationship. While I hate it, it’s objectively true that almost every conversation about Ochs eventually drifts to Dylan.

For those who haven’t looked too much into it — it’s difficult to overstate the impact that Bob Dylan had on the folk movement in the 1960s. He was to folk music what Gretzky was to hockey or Jordan was to basketball — not only widely considered the best, but also seen as someone who completely redefined the “game.”

He did that again in 1965, when — at the event which wraps up A Complete Unknown — Dylan “went electric” at the Newport Folk Festival, polarizing folk music fans but setting himself up for more and bigger successes in the broader music industry.

Following Dylan’s explosive folk-rock success, he became increasingly detached from the protest music that drove the New York City folk scene. The scene itself remained vital for years, but it was forever fractured by the departure of its biggest star, and by the changes he left behind. There is, in fact, an argument to be made that a movie picking up where A Complete Unknown leaves off might be more interesting than the one we got.

While Dylan got increasingly enthusiastic about drugs and heady songwriting, he largely left activism and topical music behind. While there was always an undercurrent of criticism — even hostility — from those in the folk movement and from the activists who felt he abandoned them, those voices were in the minority.

This is a story about Phil Ochs, but it’s opened up with…what, 500 words?…of framing about Bob Dylan. And that’s kind of the point. I prefer Ochs to Dylan, and I think he’s the best topical singer-songwriter of the era (except possibly Joan Baez, who covered Phil’s great song “There But For Fortune”).

If you happen to be one of the 50 Phil Ochs fans on the internet (word is, we can’t be wrong!), you’ve likely seen quite a bit of discourse around A Complete Unknown. There were quite a few fans who were upset to hear that Phil wouldn’t make an appearance in the film, which is set in and around the Greenwich Village folk scene at the same time as Ochs and Dylan were friends.

I wasn’t one of those people, for a simple reason: Ochs deserves better than to be treated like some angry weirdo on the fringes of Dylan’s orbit…especially since, the long run, Phil held onto his principles and was defined by them, while Dylan largely gave up on politics to focus on getting high and making cool, weird art.

There is, of course, a constant struggle between art and commerce. Dylan and Ochs are a fascinating way to view that struggle, because while Dylan is a great artist, he’s also a pioneer of making yourself a “brand.” The idea that Dylan is all art and no commerce is nonsense, and you can actually see that through the lens of an anecdote that is constantly shared about the two.

In late 1965 or early 1966, not long after the success of “Like a Rolling Stone” and “Positively 4th Street,” Dylan was on top of the world. His next single, “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window?,” failed to crack the top 40 on the charts, and Dylan appears to have been a lot more frustrated by this than he would have liked to let on.

According to a story Phil Ochs used to tell, Dylan previewed his next single — “One Of Us Must Know (Sooner or Later)” — for Ochs and another friend, David Blue, expressing enthusiasm and thinking it was the kind of song that was likely to be a big hit. While Blue praised the song, Ochs was lukewarm on it, and didn’t think it was likely to be a hit. Dylan reportedly took it quite personally and, when the time came for the trio to move to their next location, Dylan told Ochs to “get out” of his limousine and find his own way.

This story has been conflated with another one numerous times, including in a couple of Ochs biographies, but there’s actually a pretty great Reddit comment that provides a pretty credible account of it that seemingly dispels some of the myths.

This story is an interesting one to me. In most cases, it’s reported that Dylan kicked Ochs out of the limo mid-journey, and that he told him, “You’re not a writer, you’re a journalist,” supposedly disparaging Phil’s commitment to activism and topical music. The latter is something Dylan did say to Ochs once, but not in the limo, and in a context where Ochs supposedly didn’t take much offense.

The story is often used to frame their relationship, illustrating the power imbalance between Dylan and Ochs. And there’s definitely that aspect to it, but I think this version — which more closely matches the story as Ochs told it during his lifetime — reflects more on Dylan’s insecurities and the fact that he felt Ochs might have been right about the song. The more traditional version shows Dylan as an egomaniac who doesn’t respect Phil’s opinion, and that doesn’t really seem to track.

“I just can’t keep up with Phil,” Dylan told the folk magazine Broadside in 1964. “And he’s getting better and better and better.”

That doesn’t sound like somebody who doesn’t value Phil’s input. Granted, a lot can change in a year and a half, particularly after Dylan’s controversial appearance at Newport and the rock-star levels of success that followed. Nevertheless, the version of this story that has become folklore (no pun intended) to many Ochs fans never really rang true to me.

Phil, meanwhile, is an interesting character himself. He was desperate for the kind of critical and commercial success Dylan had, and he never got it. Ochs was, by most reckonings, a great songwriter who lived in the shadow of one of the all-time greats. The fact that they happened to move in the same circles and consider one another friends likely complicated the dynamic.

It’s basically undisputed that Dylan was reportedly often cruel to Ochs, and that he took for granted Phil’s loyalty and admiration. Young Dylan was mercurial, sarcastic, and self-centered — something that contributed to the love triangle that plays into A Complete Unknown.

(To his credit, Dylan reportedly asked for Suze Rotolo’s name to be changed in the movie, so that she wasn’t even further dragged through the mud by her relationship with him.)

Something I really hate as an Ochs fan is the prominence that the “limo story,” and Dylan in general, tends to have in Phil’s story.

There’s an obvious reason — Dylan loomed large over that whole era, and Phil was clearly envious of his success — but viewing a great artist exclusively through the lens of how they relate to another artist is…gross. You see it a lot with marginalized groups who are viewed through the lens of their relationship with prominent white, male artists, which makes the practice doubly suspect (although that’s obviously not the case with Ochs).

Phil’s envy of Dylan was clear, and so he is at least partially responsible for inviting these comparisons. While Dylan spoke highly of Phil as a songwriter, it doesn’t seem like he was a very good friend to Phil, but Phil took it because, like everyone else in the scene at the time, he wanted to be friends with Bob. Not that Phil didn’t occasionally take his own shots…

I would never say that the relationship between the two isn’t important. Dylan even came through for Ochs in a big way toward the end of Phil’s life. After the U.S.-backed coup in Chile, which led to the deaths of both Salvador Allende (the democratically-elected leader of Chile) and Victor Jarra (the country’s version of Woody Guthrie/Bob Dylan, and a friend of Phil’s), Ochs put on a fundraiser for Chilean refugees, and Dylan showed up to play — effectively helping the concert meet its goal simply by being there. The relationship was important — to Phil, to his music, to his reputation — and it was complicated, messy, and emotionally taxing for Ochs.

But I’m tired of seeing Phil through Dylan’s lens. The man deserves to have his story told…as his own story.

I’ve been (very slowly and) quietly working on writing a script for a nonfiction podcast that will delve into Phil’s life. This isn’t to promote that script, which is still not done and which I won’t get paid for, but that’s how strongly I feel about telling a version of this story that isn’t “hey, look! We got to pick a guy in a hat out of a crowd in a Dylan movie!”

There are a couple of definitive Ochs biographies, although hardcore fans have pretty serious critiques of both of them. There’s a fairly new one, which people seem to quite like, although it appears to be primarily centered on Ochs’s mental health. I’ll include links to all three below. There’s also a documentary film, which is great but also difficult to find these days. Last I checked, you can stream it on Kanopy (using your library card), or buy it on DVD.

Before the links, enjoy one of my favorite Phil songs:

There But For Fortune: The Life of Phil Ochs

Death of a Rebel: A Biography of Phil Ochs

That Man in the Gold Lame Suit: Phil Ochs’s Search For Self

[trollprincess]

So I think the Academy may have screwed over “Oppenheimer.”

Now I know what you’re thinking. “Wait, what are you talking about? Did you miss the Barbie snubs? Are you paying attention?” Yup, I’m totally paying attention. Let me explain.

This year’s crop of Best Picture nominees is very good. There’s not a one that doesn’t make me immediately flinch as to why it’s even there. There are some I might have added (“The Boy and the Heron” and “Across the Spider-verse” both deserve to be there, for example), but this is a good list. Not just by Academy standards, which can be questionable as hell, but by anyone’s standard.

Up until now, “Oppenheimer” has pretty much been a lock for this. It’s very well made, acted, directed, written, all of it. It’s good. It deserves it.

But. BUT.

Final voting is between February 22nd and 27th this year. So that’s an entire month of press and interviews and predictions and whatnot. And already the big story is not “Oppenheimer has 13 nominations.” It’s “Why the fuck weren’t Margot Robbie and Greta Gerwig nominated for best actress and best director for Barbie?!”

And the thing is, they DID get nominated - Margot for producing and Greta for writing. Which is not me dismissing the fact they *should* have gotten nominated for directing and acting. (Note: There will be no Ryan Gosling shaming in this house. He deserves his nomination. So does America Ferrera. This is not a case of “only the man got the nomination.” Don’t erase America’s well-deserved nomination.)

So back to Greta and Margot. The next few weeks are going to be the Hollywood media asking “Did the Academy fuck up?” about their nominations. Did they not get the point of the movie? How does one of the best movies of the year not get a nomination for it lead actress and female director? Did Oppenheimer only get so much attention riding on “Barbenheimer”’s coattails? (Monetarily, oh, yeah. Awards show-wise, no.) Like, today we’re talking about their snubs, but it’s not going to stop today. There’s going to be discourse and prediction discussion and “Annette Bening stole Margot’s nomination” bullshit probably.

Basically, the Academy accidentally made the fact it snubbed Margot and Greta the story, and not the fact three other movies got more nominations than “Barbie,” including the likely winner of Best Picture.

The next part depends on if Hollywood can feel guilt and shame. So, you know, it’s anybody’s guess. But directors only voted for directing nominees, and actors only voted for acting nominees. Everybody gets to vote for best film.

Now, here’s the thing. Even IF they got nominated for directing and acting, they wouldn’t have won. Actress is between Gladstone and Stone (I’m hoping for Gladstone), and Nolan probably already has an empty mantel spot prepared. They just wouldn’t have won, it’s just nice to be nominated, yadda yadda.

But the Oscars have this *thing* where sometimes it’s not so much you getting an award because *that performance* deserved it, but because YOU deserved it. Leonardo DiCaprio should have gotten an Oscar for “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape” and/or “Wolf of Wall Street,” they gave it to him for “The Revenant,” which isn’t as good as either previous role. Kate Winslet wins for “The Reader,” which if Best Acting By Kate Winslet were an Oscar category wouldn’t even make the list and would probably get beat by “Mare of Easttown,” which isn’t even a goddamn movie.

You’re an Oscar voter this year. It’s the end of February, and you’re looking at your ballot. And you’ve spent the past few weeks hearing about the Oscars fucked up. How Hollywood didn’t get the point of “Barbie.” How the Academy didn’t even nominate BARBIE for the fucking “Barbie” movie. And you might be thinking, “��� I mean, we CAN still give them Oscars.”

Greta’s an easy choice. The Barbie script is incredible, and detailed and smart and funny. Greta already has Oscar nominations for writing. Adapting a book is one thing. Adapting sixty years of canon is a high achievement. I think this pretty much locked her screenplay win.

Margot is nominated for best producer. We’re going to spend the next four weeks seeing articles about just how much work Margot put into this movie. When Margot Robbie loves a project, she works her ASS off on it. And the work shows with Barbie. It’s a good goddamn movie, AND it made $1.4 billion dollars. As good as it was, “Oppenheimer” doesn’t make $955 million if “Barbenheimer” isn’t a thing. There’s an argument to be made that Margot deserves the producer nomination AND win MORE than the actress nomination, because as a producer she made TWO movies reach a billion at the box office, *and she had fuck all to do with one of them*.

So, yeah, I think the Academy might have fucked over “Oppenheimer.” Because for the next month, while people are debating what and who to vote for, all that right there? That’s going to be the discourse they’re sitting on right before voting for Best Picture.

[ratcontrolledracecar]

I'm not very interested in participating in Grammys discourse (because it seems their yearly mission is making everyone upset) but I am pleasantly surprised to see Kendrick and Beyonce win in big categories because for the first time in my memory Record, Song, and Album of the Year went to non-pop projects

which is pretty cool honestly I think the Grammys has a genre issue when it comes to their "big" awards. I'll never be one to shit on pop music but the Recording Academy is seriously missing out (if I'm being kind) on recognizing some amazing music by not branching out and nominating other genres in those categories

[anthonycrowley]

i really did like barbie it was very fun and enjoyable it was a good two hours. but 1. saying it was the best movie of the year is laughable. even if you only watched blockbusters oppenheimer is an objectively more technically solid movie with a plot more in line with something the academy is actually going to pick during awards season. in comparison i was surprised it was nominated for anything except design awards, honestly. like i’m sorry to be gatekeepy but go to your local indie theater once a year and maybe you will broaden your perspective. 2. i am so fucking tired of feminist discourse (especially when i’m stupid ryan gosling straight up wasn’t the only person nominated for acting. america ferrera was nominated for best supporting. WHAT are we doing here.) surrounding a goddamned glorified mattel ad still dominating the cultural zeitgeist six months later

[harveyguilleniconodelamoda]

Harvey on Fashion for Plus Sizes: "Let's Make It Available to All of Us!"

Harvey spoke to Charles Bright of GoldDerby last week on a webchat about What We Do In The Shadows ending, his voice acting career, and his incredible red carpet collaborations with Christian Siriano.

I want to do a full retrospective on this topic eventually, but that's somehow an even bigger undertaking than chronicling all of Guillermo's sweaters, so it may take a while. In the meantime, I've provided a write-up of the fashion portion of the chat below, along with some photos and additional fashion commentary from yours truly!

You can watch the full webchat here.

"Well you've got to remember that being a guy of size, not a lot of people or designers were willing to dress me," Harvey begins, in response to a question about his favorite red carpet look from the past two years. "And it's upsetting. It reminds me of Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman going 'I've got money to spend in here!'"

Harvey has spoken before about how prior to 2022, he dressed himself for red carpet events, and sometimes even had to provide his own costumes on set when the costume department didn't have anything that fit him. This is a problem many plus sized entertainers have encountered over the years, even as conversations about body positivity and fat acceptance have become more prominent in public discourse.

Siriano deserves a lot of credit for his track record of breaking barriers in fashion, for getting on board with Harvey's vision, and for bringing some incredible, iconic, history-making looks to life. But Harvey had been slaying on red carpets for years before their collaboration began, often in looks he put together himself without the aid of a designer or stylist. His love of fashion is not new, and his sense of style has always been on point!

Hollywood has been extremely reluctant to be inclusive in this way, with the media often reacting to even one or two high profile plus sized celebrities with concern trolling about whether they're "glorifying obesity" just by existing as successful and talented people in larger bodies in the public eye. But just as with so many other aspects of his career, Harvey has simply carved out doors for himself when none were opening.

"People don't take a risk because they're afraid, right?" Harvey explains. "But you could be the first! I've been fortunate. Talking to Christian Siriano, I was getting ready for the Academy Awards and I had this vision of like...'I really want to do something different, and I know that you don't really dress guys. I want to find a happy medium where it's masculine, and a little feminine, but it's me,' and it just wasn't something that they usually do."

"But we collaborated and we had this idea of like, what if it was the 1920s, but I'm going in a style that's retro, so it's the Gilded Age. So my hair is 1922 but I'm giving a nod to the Gilded Age because that would be vintage back in 1922. And so that's how I got that idea, and then we got the whole tuxedo flare and whatnot."

The now-iconic tuxedo gown Harvey wore to the 2023 Oscars.

"Working with Christian has been great. After that I think Vogue ran it, and it got all this attention, and people were like 'woah! a plus size guy looking good in fashion' and I was like 'yeah, we are out here and there's a lot of us! And I feel like there's just not designers who are designing for us or making it available to us.'"

Harvey's red carpet look for the Oscars, as well as his look for the Vanity Fair after party, appeared on multiple best dressed lists. He was even declared the best dressed person on the Oscars red carpet by MsMojo.

"After that Christian and I became friends," Harvey says. "I hosted the GLAAD awards and he dressed me for that, and I was honored with an award in California and he dressed me for that...and so we've been collaborating on different outfits."

Harvey and Christian Siriano have now collaborated on ten different outfits for half a dozen events since the start of 2023, including most recently the 2024 Critic's Choice Awards in January (where he once again made it only best dressed lists, such as this one from TVInsider) and the Garfield movie premiere in May.

"The Met Gala last year was, I think, the cherry on top, because it was a kind of nod to Chanel with a tweed in pink. But [the gala] was also honoring Karl Lagerfeld, and to be in my body, and being a POC, and wearing pink--so still honoring but not forgetting, and also representing myself--was a nice collaboration, and I think that gown was really beautiful and I loved it."

Harvey's Met Gala ensemble was easily one of the most impressive of the night, managing to be both flawlessly on theme while also being a creative interpretation that critiqued the subject of the theme.

Harvey finishes up his thoughts on his red carpet style by saying he wants to continue working with Siriano, as well as other designers who are willing to take a chance with him.

"The payoff is, you know, like you said: people look to people in film and television to be inspired, and be like 'why can't I? I can wear that! Where can I get that?' You know? And it's like you should be able to get that. Let's make it available to all of us."

Sounds great to me, Harvey! And it's true.

On a personal note, Harvey's incredible style and confidence has definitely been an inspiration. He's spoken a few times about how he's had people tell him how watching him has given them more confidence in themselves, and I count myself among that number. I am so excited to see what the rest of 2024 holds for him, on and off the red carpet!

[fairycosmos]

the barbie discourse is so funny to me, because every year that same crowd goes "we don't care about the oscars!! it's a stupid award show!!" and then this year they are like that because of a movie 👋🏾👋🏾

right like i thought we didn't give a shit what the old men in suits from the academy thought LOL i thought they weren't the dictators of creativity and talent and success anymoreee

[mercurytrinemoon]

THE GRAMMYS AKA IT'S SAGI SEASON, I GUESS?

With Moon transiting Sagittarius during the night of the Grammy awards, all the archers in the room sweeped their awards and stole the show… for good and for bad. That night Mercury ingressed into Aquarius, making its conjunction with Pluto so the drama has to be present and it's still an active discourse on social media.

Miley's first Grammy

This year Miley won her first Grammy (two, actually). The massive delay in her receiving an award might be linked to her having Saturn in the 10th house natally. Her Saturn return ended a year ago so it only fits that now's the time for her to solidify her work and have an offical stamp of approval.

Let's look at her transits for the night. She's in her Jupiter-ruled profection year so Jupiter transits will be crucial for her. The planet of luck is currently transiting Taurus - her 1st whole sign house and the house of her natal lot of fortune. It's in a relatively close degree to her Capricorn Venus, making a supportive trine. On top of that, she actually just went through her Venus return in the 9th house so we get somewhat of a double whammy for her.

This is what Billie was made for...

Now let's look at Billie Eilish, who's been sweeping awards pretty much since she released her first album but her chart is worth looking at as well. First of all, her having both Sun and Venus in her 10th house next to the MC should already tell us that she has, in fact, very high chances of being recognized by people in authority - so, the music academy as well - and just being generally liked and positively received. And speaking of the 10th house, last year she went through her 10th house profection year in Sagittarius, ruled by Jupiter in her natal 5th. And during this time she created something that will be remembered by a lot of people. Pretty neat.

Currently she's in her 11th house profection year. She has Mercury in that house in Capricorn so transiting Jupiter is trining it by sign. And, just like Miley, Billie has her lot of fortune in Taurus as well. Very interesting. Look out for Jupiter transiting the sign of your lot of fortune then!

In terms of the song itself. The general story was that she felt a massive creative block and she was afraid she won't write anything interesting ever again but then her and Finneas forced themselves to sit on a Barbie song and it came out just like that. Now, I've managed to catch an ig story from her, celebrating an anniversary of when they wrote it: it was January 16-17th 2023, only one day before Mercury stationed direct and a few days after Mars stationed direct. That should speak for itself when it comes to any type of a creative block as retrograde planets can often make you feel stuck.

I think no matter what, her Venus on the MC will always shine through and she will keep on presenting that venusian grace and beauty through her craft. Creative blocks should be no enemy for her as this is what she was made for.

Taylor wins an award but looses in the eyes of people

Taylor Swift won album of the year. She seems to win almost every time she's nominated so she's clearly one of the Grammy favorites. But what is interesting is that, just like Miley and Billie, she has her lot of fortune in… you've guessed it, Taurus! I think just having the lot being ruled by a benefic planet is the first step to success.

She also has a Capricorn inner planet and that is Mercury at 8° - so again, Jupiter is currently making a trine. And on top of that, Mercury is her time lord for the year since she's in her 11th house profection in Virgo. She's also receiving a very supportive trine from Saturn to her natal Jupiter, which generally supports her being recognized during this time.

BUT. I've mentioned that the night of the ceremony Mercury entered Aquarius and got dangerously close to Pluto. This was the first and one of the many coming hits of Pluto charged with other planets to Taylor's natal Venus, which sits right at the very beginning of the sign. And there was drama and the drama will continue and I do believe this it the beginning of something bigger for her. Pluto can bring polarities, it can bring massive success and clout but it can also bring a huge downfall. I honestly doubt someone who sells out stadiums would suddenly loose their popularity but as many people have said since the Grammys, some sort of veil has been lifted and I'm suspecting more and more people will start point fingers at her and her actions: from acting inappropriate and being egocentric to things like contributing to carbon footprint or being silent when it comes to global and socio-political issues. So sure, Pluto on her Venus might make her even more rich (I know she still has the european leg of the tour left) but she may as well loose face at the same time.

Mercury in Sagittarius is strong with Jay-Z

Now another Sagittarius I wanted to tackle is Jay-Z, who, in his Sagi Mercury fashion, said what everyone wanted to say and threw a massive shade at the Grammy voting system and just... them being shite in general. We're not 100% sure of his birth time and his transits don't necessary scream "WINNER!" at this time BUT: if he is, in fact, a Virgo rising, his time lord for the year is Jupiter and currently Jupiter would transit his 9th house, where his Saturn is in Taurus. That is still very supportive as 9th house is one of the houses of the greats and Jupiter transiting over Saturn honors the legacy and achievements - and that is what he was recognized for with the Dr. Dre Global Impact Award.

Let's quickly discuss some other non-Sagi winners

Victoria Monét won in a cuple of categories. She's a Leo rising with Sun in… Taurus in the 10th house. So, once again, Jupiter did its thing.

SZA was also among the winners. She has quite a few planets in her 10t house so I feel like either way success is guaranteed for her. When it comes to transits, Jupiter did influence her as well: trining Capricorn Venus and Saturn, opposing her Scorpio placements and sextiling her Moon and Jupiter. She is also in a Jupiter-ruled profection year. Interestingly, she debuted a new song titled "Saturn". Very fitting for an Aquarius rising.

Jack Antonoff being the goat

Actually he's a double ram but his Jupiter is… up on the highest heights of MC in Capricorn. So, a literal goat as well… slowly climbing to success.

His chart does scream "CREATIVITY!!!!" (an exalted Venus? A cardinal rising? An Aries stellium? Being born on a New Moon? What else do you need?). His chart is also very strong- and stable-looking. He's been awarded for quite a few things over the years, which, with planetary placements like these, it makes total sense for him to be one of the favorites. This year, the supportive trine from Jupiter to his natal Jupiter was just an extra dose of help in receiving a Grammy. This, as well as a transiting stellium through his 10th house.

The snub of the night?

Considering the amount of nominations for this year's awards, the biggest snub seems to be Olivia Rodrigo. So let's take a look at her chart. Interestingly - and at this point I am no longer surprised - her lot of fortune is also in Taurus with the ruler Venus in Capricorn. Her time lord for the year is Mercury and her natal Mercury is in Aquarius - currently squared by Jupiter. In her case, that square from a benefic can cause more harm than good, since she has a natal oppositions of thse two planets. This tense transit can actually unleash unnecessary hate and preachiness towards her. Saturn is still hanging near her Sun, which obviously can dampen things a lot. So, she seemed to have a great 2023 but some things are not quite perfect after all.

Let's compare it to 2022's Grammys to see transits for her big wins that year. Jupiter was still in Pisces, where her natal Sun is and that Sun was her time lord, which is very important here. She also had Saturn trining her natal Saturn, which helps being supported and recognized by those with authority. A great transit to sweep these awards.

[oil-diffuser]

Feel myself outgrowing social media when I scroll past the ridiculous ongoing discourse on twitter about Anora. Just the depth of these discussions to find meaning in the movie and the Academy awarding it

And I mean “find meaning” in a moral and emotional sense. I’m not young enough for that search for meaning to impact my worldview, so an answer in those terms wouldn’t even be worth it to me

[askaniritual]

academy awards discourse is funny to me because my uncle is a member of the academy i always wanna call him up and be like hey man you would not believe what they r saying abt you on twitter