This week on the /Filmcast, we’re joined by Aisha Harris from Slate to discuss Jordan Peele’s Get Out. Also, we try to unpack what happened at the Oscars last night.
For more, check out my blog post on what went wrong at this year’s Oscars.
This week on the /Filmcast, we’re joined by Aisha Harris from Slate to discuss Jordan Peele’s Get Out. Also, we try to unpack what happened at the Oscars last night.
For more, check out my blog post on what went wrong at this year’s Oscars.
In an article for The New York Times, Nick Bilton reveals the first sales numbers for PSVR (and thus any VR headset) ever publicly released:
The headset, PlayStation VR, has been scarce in many stores, especially in Japan, since it went on sale in October. In an interview at his Silicon Valley office on Friday, Mr. House revealed PlayStation VR’s sales for the first time, saying consumers had purchased 915,000 of the headsets as of Feb. 19, roughly four months after it went on sale.
Sony’s internal goal was to sell one million of the headsets in its first six months, by mid-April. The company will almost certainly surpass that forecast. “You literally have people lining up outside stores when they know stock is being replenished,” said Mr. House, describing the scene in Japan, one of the largest games markets […]
Sony’s primary competitors, Oculus from Facebook and HTC, have not disclosed sales of their premium headsets. One research firm, SuperData Research, estimates there were 243,000 Oculus Rift headsets and 420,000 HTC Vive headsets sold by the end of last year.
Those sales numbers are interesting, and make the PSVR sound much more popular in Japan than here. The lack of a killer app makes me loathe to invest in PSVR. My colleague, Devindra Hardawar, had a pretty good review of the product when it was first released and nothing about it made it seem like a must-buy.
That being said, the fact that I already have a PS4 Pro means PSVR is likely going to be my first VR purchase when the time is right.
Tonight’s Oscars ceremony brought, without a doubt, the craziest Oscars moment I’ve ever witnessed in all my life: During the evening’s climax, Warren Beatty opened up the Best Picture winner envelope and handed it to Faye Dunaway, who read off the winner as La La Land. Shortly afterward, it became clear that Moonlight, not La La Land, had actually won Best Picture. What went wrong?
To understand how this happened, it is helpful to understand how the envelope system works. In an article on Medium, the folks from PricewaterhouseCoopers explain:
The producers decide what the order of the awards will be. We each have a full set. I have all 24 envelopes in my briefcase; Martha has all 24 in hers. We stand on opposite sides of the stage, right off-screen, for the entire evening, and we each hand the respective envelope to the presenter. It doesn’t sound very complicated, but you have to make sure you’re giving the presenter the right envelope.
It seems clear that the wrong envelope was handed to Warren Beatty — a duplicate of the Best Actress envelope, which had just been awarded to Emma Stone for La La Land.
Warren Beatty seems to be opening an envelope that says ‘Actress in a Leading Role’. He must have been handed the wrong one somehow. Yikes. pic.twitter.com/Rma4wp80aX
— Neil Patrick Harris (@ActuallyNPH) February 27, 2017
Thus, the sequence of events was as follows:
You can watch a video of the entire incident here. Rebecca Keegan at Vanity Fair has more color around what happened. Matthew Jacobs at HuffPo wrote a fortuitous piece about how Oscar producers handle a mixup like this. Also: Mahershala Ali’s response to this is all class.
Here are a few things I take away from this:
This #Oscars did the impossible: It awarded the most deserving film Best Pic, and it made me feel bad for the people who made LA LA LAND.
— David Chen (@davechensky) February 27, 2017
And some other thoughts on the rest of the ceremony:
I recorded more detailed thoughts on a Periscope video reacting to the event. What did you think of this year’s Oscars ceremony?
Update: PricewaterhouseCopers has now apologized for the mix-up.
I was super upset this morning to hear of the passing of Bill Paxton.
Paxton was an actor who was memorable in every single role he played. I always found his characters to be relatable and likable, no matter what film he was in, or even what kind of character he was playing.
Aliens. Apollo 13. Titanic. Nightcrawler. True Lies. The man had a ton of range and was a frequent presence in some of my favorite movies of all time.
His directorial debut, Frailty, was a confident, creepy thriller and foretold the McConnaissance. It’s a movie that does not get nearly enough love.
His recent performance in Edge of Tomorrow may not be his best but it is one of my favorite. In it, he plays Master Sergeant Farell, a hardass who whips Tom Cruise’s character into shape and delivers harsh pronouncements with style:
The good news is there’s hope for you private. Hope in the form of glorious combat. Battle is the Great Redeemer. It is the fiery crucible in which true heroes are forged. The one place where all men truly share the same rank, regardless of what kind of parasitic scum they were going in.
No one could deliver a monologue quite like him.
RIP Bill Paxton. You brought joy to a lot of people.
David Cox, writing for The Guardian:
It is easy to see why the Academy’s voters have embraced La La Land. Many of them will have followed a path all too similar to Seb and Mia’s. Seeing their life-choices vindicated by the witchcraft of their trade must have been something of a comfort. All the same, the best picture winners that stick in the memory, such as Schindler’s List, Gandhi, Chariots of Fire and Titanic, tend to extol humanity’s better nature, not its shortcomings.
This time round there are also films among La La Land’s doomed rivals that could make us proud of our species. Moonlight deals with love. Manchester by the Sea offers contrition. Arrival honours inquiry. Hacksaw Ridge celebrates selflessness. Any of these would be a worthier winner than Damien Chazelle’s tawdry and dispiriting confection. La La Land’s victory on Sunday night will tell us something about our era. But it will be no triumph for film-makers, filmgoers or film.
Amrou Al-Kadhi, writing for The Independent:
I’m now 26, and in my career, I’ve been sent nearing 30 scripts for which I’ve been asked to play terrorists on screen. Roles have varied from ones as meaty as “Suspicious Bearded Man on Tube” to “Muslim man who hides his bombs in a deceptive burka” […]
Stories onscreen have the rare ability to arouse empathy for diverse characters in audiences across the world, so leaving out Arab and Muslim voices in such a context of global Islamophobia is particularly damaging. With masterful directors, sublime works like Moonlight happen; now the story of gay black masculinity in the Miami ghetto has become that much more relatable and mainstream. It is my genuine belief that if the TV and film industry had been more diligent in representing Arab characters – with all our humane, complex, intersectional three-dimensionality – xenophobia would not be as pandemic as it is today.
And hence I pray that La La Land doesn’t clean up at the Oscars (as at the BAFTAs). For this would be a sign that the industry prioritises the celebration of itself first of all, self-indulgently rejoicing in its own nostalgic – and white – mythology.
As I touched on in this week’s Gen Pop, many aspects of life seem to have become proxies for other battles our culture is currently engaging in. Some people look at the Oscars race between Moonlight and La La Land and see an epic conflict between celebrating diversity and celebrating whiteness. In reality, those films are the end products of two passionate filmmakers who just wanted to tell their stories.
Thus, I’m not sure how much significance to place on who wins Best Picture this year. It’s the product of so many different variables, some of them unknowable and uncontrollable. At the same time, I can’t begrudge Al-Kadhi his own reaction; if I’d been subjected to the same treatment as him during his career, I might have a lot of hope in Moonlight this weekend too.
I spend a lot of time on Twitter and I see tons of amazing dialogue and reflections. Twitter Thread of the Day is a feature on my blog where I’ll try to share one thread that was particularly interesting, smart, moving, or impactful for me. Go here to read previous editions.
Today’s TTOTD comes from Anand Giridharadas, who writes about the shooting of Srinivas Kuchibhotla and Alok Madasani in Kansas. The attack seems like a clear example of a hate crime, fueled by the current political climate that’s awash in anti-immigrant sentiment. Giridharadas explains how this happened.
[Note: If you’re ever featured here and don’t want to be, feel free to get in touch with me via email at davechen(AT)davechen(DOT)net]
I am shocked by the murder of Srinivas Kuchibhotla in Kansas, and want to share some things I learned reporting on a similar crime in Texas.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
Like the Kansas attacker, Mark Stroman of Dallas thought he was targeting Middle Easterners, and thought he was protecting America.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
President Trump’s administration has quickly leapt to say his talk and actions have nothing to do with this crime. https://t.co/EceiTIditJ
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
I would like to explain why the president is dead wrong on this one. He has everything to do with this, and I can explain.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
What I learned reporting on the Stroman spree, which occurred right after 9/11, is how such an act is dependent on circles of enablement.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
Frankly, Stroman wasn’t intellectually sophisticated enough to channel his anger in this direction on his own. He needed help.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
When I reviewed his letters, prison writings and blog posts, what amazed me was how he had stolen so much language from his social betters.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
It mattered greatly what politicians and pundits said, because it gave his inchoate drifter emotions a purpose and a narrative.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
He heard talk of “enemy combatants” on the news. He was inspired by that to call himself an “allied combatant.”
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
So many of his phrases were borrowed from Fox News. He was a man without purpose all his life. This borrowed language gave him purpose.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
These stories are so often of drifting lives electrified by a sense of having to save one’s country. That call to save comes from on high.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
Here’s the thing. Stroman had no explicit support in 2001 from the highest levels of U.S. power. But the Kansas killer did. From @POTUS.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
W. Bush explicitly praised Islam and supported Muslims. Trump has explicitly degraded them and called them a problem. People hear that.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
Trump makes the statements and goes back to his chefs and jet. But there are aimless Americans who take the words as a summons to greatness.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
Part of being a leader is understanding how what you say will be used, how it will refract into other lives. That explains Bush’s remarks.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
Based on my reporting on Stroman, I can say that Trump has supplied more permission than Stroman ever received back in 2001.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
Trump not only identifies and exaggerates this threat to America. He also keeps talking down our institutional capacity to respond to it.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
Please understand, Mr. President, that this too gives permission, by dog-whistling to drifters that they might do what the government can’t.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
Stroman was deeply motivated by the idea that the government wasn’t going to be tough after 9/11. So he had to be.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
So when @Potus denigrates our intel services and says he knows more than the generals, out there in America it empowers the hate criminal.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
When he spreads his idea of Americanness-as-whiteness, he and his rich friends can laugh about the brilliant tactic. But people listen.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
And a small fraction of those who listen will arm themselves and go to war. And people will die. And the president should sleep on that.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
.@potus understood one thing well: millions of Americans felt punched down upon for a generation. Some were right.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
But now he answers their feelings not by shielding them or helping, but by diverting blame from those who screwed them to those who didn’t.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
So the answer to those who felt punched down upon is the chance for them now to punch down at others. That isn’t leadership. It’s the WWF.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
U.S. elites did long neglect middle- and working-class folks. The remedy isn’t giving them permission to hate and sometimes kill immigrants.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
In other words, the least vulnerable Americans screwed the middlingly vulnerable, and Trump’s answer is a war against the most vulnerable.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
Goldman guy cost Scranton guy his house and hours, and now brown, Muslim & immigrant communities are attacked. Goldman guy’s in the cabinet.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
Wake up. The only people who are winning from this are the people who caused the problem. We cannot go to war against each other. Stop it.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
Because our president may keep giving this hate-permission, your voice matters. Drown the permission out. Tell people they are welcome.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
Stroman was persuadable. He heard more voices inspiring him to kill than inspiring him to love. Change their calculus. Goodnight. With love.
— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) February 25, 2017
The Washington Post’s new slogan is “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” It’s fitting, punchy, and alliterative. And it could’ve been so much worse.
In an article in their style section, Paul Farhi reveals some of the rejected options:
The group brainstormed more than 500 would-be slogans. The choices ranged from the heroic (“Dauntless Defenders of the Truth”) to the clunky (“American democracy lives down the street. No one keeps closer watch.”) to the Zen-like (“Yes. Know.”).
The group ultimately ended up where it started — with “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”
Note: apparently coming up with a new slogan is now a good way to generate a lot of media coverage (including one’s own).
I was pleased to participate in this week’s /Answers about our favorite comic book movies, along with the filmmaker who made the film that I listed.