Well this is interesting. Recently, an anonymous voter for the Academy Awards gave a no-holds-barred interview to The Hollywood Reporter, explaining how and why he voted for this year’s nominees. Some of his commentary is clearly meant to be a little ridiculous, but there’s one comment that some folks are not taking lightly. Click inside to read his comments about the youngest Oscar nominee ever, Quvenzhané Wallis.
Indiewire has the story:
What type of sick individual could hate on a cute little baby like Beast Of The Southern Wild’s Oscar-nominatedactress Quvenzhané Wallis?
The Hollywood Reporter recently published one “anonymous” Academy Award voter’s “brutally honest” take on this year’s Oscar field. This so-called director (and I have my suspicions of who it might be, but I’ll stay quiet until I have proof) felt the need to sound edgy and relevant, I guess.
He said a whole lot about a lot of the nominees, but what stood out the most to me were his comments on Wallis:
“I also don’t vote for anyone whose name I can’t pronounce. Quvez—? Quzen—? Quyzenay? Her parents really put her in a hole by giving her that name — Alphabet Wallis. The truth is, it’s a very sweet but immature performance from a 9-year-old. I’ve directed children. They probably did a thousand takes and put the best ones together.”
If this “anonymous” director hadn’t felt it necessary to insult Miss Wallis about her name– something that she obviously had no control over– I may have bought his explanation that he’d worked with better child actors, as his reason for not voting for her.
But this is clearly cultural bias, aimed at an innocent child who doesn’t deserve it. So “shame on you”, whoever you are.
This so-called director also took a shot at Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained, saying “it’s a fun movie, but it’s basically just Quentin Tarantino masturbating for almost three hours.” I’ll leave it up to readers to decide who they think this anonymous Academy Award voter/director could be.
I read some of the rest of his interview, which is HERE. He’s definitely just trying to start some ish. For example, this is what he said about Amour, which I really liked:
Amour is purely a performance piece; besides, Michael Haneke has pissed me off in the past because he’s made movies that are so misanthropic. He just hates human beings, and I happen to be a human being and don’t like being shit on.
LOL, OMG. These are the people voting for the Oscars, y’all. He even admitted to voting in categories when he hadn’t seen any of the films, like the Best Animated Short. Crazy.
Now the writer at Indiewire and lots of readers as well are saying his comment about Quvenzhané is actually a cultural– even racial– issue. I actually agree with part of his critique of her performance. I would have loved for her to win, but I didn’t think it was the best performance of the year. However, I’d rather he’d stuck to critiquing her performance, not her name, or her parent’s decision to name her something other than Anne. Whatever.
What do y’all think? Was this guy way outta line or what? And what does all this say about the Academy?0