vox--2020-02-09--Why the Oscars won’t have a host this year

Sunday ’ s Oscars ceremony will be hostless for the second year in a row .
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced via Twitter in January that no host would be forthcoming .
Instead , it named a long lineup of quality presenters , from fan favorites like ( 2020 Oscar nominee ) Taika Waititi and Lin-Manuel Miranda to industry legends like Steve Martin and Sigourney Weaver .
That roster of A-listers should hopefully ensure that the ceremony can still provide something for everyone — or at least the roughly 30 million people who ’ ll bother @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it seems likely this hostless streak is the start of a new normal .
It ’ s been a long time since January 2019 , so you might not remember that last year was the first time in two decades that the Oscars had gone without a host .
The Academy went host-free when its first choice , Kevin Hart , flounced from the job after coming under social media fire .
The Academy had originally announced in December 2018 that Kevin Hart had accepted the gig , only for Hart to quickly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homophobic jokes he ’ d made on Twitter .
Reportedly pressed by the Academy to apologize , Hart then changed his mind about hosting and backed out , stating on Twitter that he didn ’ t want controversy around him to be a distraction from the awards .
“ I do not want to be a distraction on a night that should be celebrated by so many amazing talented artists , ” he wrote .
But while the inciting incident that iced out last year ’ s Oscars host may have been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and cancel culture , it speaks to a larger exhaustion that Hollywood celebrities seem to feel over the ceremony .
Hosting the Oscars has often been viewed as a huge achievement for entertainers , particularly comedians who get to fill the shoes of legendary hosts like Billy Crystal and Whoopi Goldberg .
But there are plenty of good reasons why the Oscars gig seems to be a harder sell these days .
For a start , it doesn ’ t pay well .
Jimmy Kimmel claimed he earned $ 15,000 in 2017 for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ busy lives , that ’ s probably just not enough to make the time , stress , and potentially dangerous overexposure worth it .
Increasingly , that last factor seems to be the tipping point .
As another controversial Oscars host , Seth MacFarlane , argued in 2019 after he turned down an invitation to replace Hart , the host essentially signs up to have a target placed on their back .
“ Look , it ’ s a gig that has all eyes on it , ” MacFarlane told Entertainment Weekly .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ something that ’ s that much in the spotlight , with that much focus on it , that much intensity , you ’ re going to have a lot of opinions from a lot of people .
I ’ m trying to think of the last time that I read a review of the Oscars the next day where everyone is raving about it — it ’ s been a long time.
” By contrast , without the pressure of hosting , last years ’ Oscars ceremony went off without a hitch .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ upward shift after an overall ratings decline , so maybe going the hostless route will continue to help the ceremony pull out of its slump .
And that makes sense ; after all , as Vox ’ s Alissa Wilkinson wrote last year , “ Part of the job of the Oscar host is to represent Hollywood to the world — to project , in tandem with the Academy ’ s chosen winners , how Hollywood sees itself , and what it aspires to be.
” An evening of diverse presenters reflects Hollywood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and tell more unique stories from all walks of life .
It ’ s true that this year ’ s actual nominees don ’ t really represent that diversity — but many of the celebrities themselves do , and for an increasing number of moviegoers , watching them is probably more entertaining than a single host telling the same bad jokes all evening .
Besides , for the past few years , all of the show ’ s most memorable moments have had little to do with the host .
Moments like “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 Best Picture snafu prove that the best entertainment arises from unexpected , unrehearsed spontaneity , not pre-scripted canned jokes .
It ’ s true for the Oscars , as it is with life .
We look forward to this three-hour philosophy lesson .

Sunday’s Oscars ceremony is hostless for the second year in a row. Although Steve Martin and Chris Rock entertained the crowd at the beginning of the ceremony, they were quick to clarify that their comedic partnership was only temporary. “We’ve had a great time not hosting tonight,” Martin said.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced via Twitter in January that no host would be forthcoming. Instead, it named a long lineup of quality presenters, from fan favorites like (2020 Oscar nominee) Taika Waititi and Lin-Manuel Miranda to industry legends like Steve Martin and Sigourney Weaver.
That roster of A-listers should hopefully ensure that the ceremony can still provide something for everyone — or at least the roughly 30 million people who bother to tune in. In fact, it seems likely this hostless streak is the start of a new normal.
This year’s #Oscars at a glance:
✅ Stars
✅ Performances
✅ Surprises
Host
See you Feb. 9th! — The Academy (@TheAcademy) January 8, 2020
It’s been a long time since January 2019, so you might not remember that last year was the first time in two decades that the Oscars went without a host. The Academy went host-free when its first choice, Kevin Hart, flounced from the job after coming under social media fire.
The Academy had originally announced in December 2018 that Kevin Hart had accepted the gig, only for Hart to quickly become embroiled in public backlash over old homophobic jokes he’d made on Twitter. Reportedly pressed by the Academy to apologize, Hart then changed his mind about hosting and backed out, stating on Twitter that he didn’t want controversy around him to be a distraction from the awards.
“I do not want to be a distraction on a night that should be celebrated by so many amazing talented artists,” he wrote.
But while the inciting incident that iced out last year’s Oscars host may have been a volatile mix of Hart’s ego and cancel culture, it speaks to a larger exhaustion that Hollywood celebrities seem to feel over the ceremony.
Hosting the Oscars has often been viewed as a huge achievement for entertainers, particularly comedians who get to fill the shoes of legendary hosts like Billy Crystal and Whoopi Goldberg. But there are plenty of good reasons why the Oscars gig seems to be a harder sell these days. For a start, it doesn’t pay well. Jimmy Kimmel claimed he earned $15,000 in 2017 for hosting, and for high-profile stars with busy lives, that’s probably just not enough to make the time, stress, and potentially dangerous overexposure worth it.
Increasingly, that last factor seems to be the tipping point. As another controversial Oscars host, Seth MacFarlane, argued in 2019 after he turned down an invitation to replace Hart, the host essentially signs up to have a target placed on their back.
“Look, it’s a gig that has all eyes on it,” MacFarlane told Entertainment Weekly. “And when you’re doing something that’s that much in the spotlight, with that much focus on it, that much intensity, you’re going to have a lot of opinions from a lot of people. I’m trying to think of the last time that I read a review of the Oscars the next day where everyone is raving about it — it’s been a long time.”
By contrast, without the pressure of hosting, last year’s Oscars ceremony went off without a hitch. Even better, it saw a slight upward shift after an overall ratings decline, so maybe going the hostless route will continue to help the ceremony pull out of its slump.
And that makes sense; after all, as Vox’s Alissa Wilkinson wrote last year, “Part of the job of the Oscar host is to represent Hollywood to the world — to project, in tandem with the Academy’s chosen winners, how Hollywood sees itself, and what it aspires to be.” An evening of diverse presenters reflects Hollywood’s ongoing overall push to diversify and tell more unique stories from all walks of life. It’s true that this year’s actual nominees don’t really represent that diversity — but many of the celebrities themselves do, and for an increasing number of moviegoers, watching them is probably more entertaining than a single host telling the same bad jokes all evening.
Besides, for the past few years, all of the show’s most memorable moments have had little to do with the host. Moments like “Gary from Chicago” and the amazing 2017 Best Picture snafu prove that the best entertainment arises from unexpected, unrehearsed spontaneity, not pre-scripted canned jokes. It’s true for the Oscars, as it is with life. We look forward to this three-hour philosophy lesson.


vox--2020-02-09--What to expect at the 2020 Oscars

What to expect at the 2020 Oscars

At last , the first Oscars of the new decade are upon us , and they ’ re as unpredictable as ever .
The 2020 Academy Awards ceremony will air live from Los Angeles ’ s Dolby Theatre on Sunday , February 9 , at 8 pm Eastern/5 pm Pacific on ABC .
The awards will also stream live on Oscars.com and the Academy ’ s Facebook page .
Compared to the controversy-ridden 2019 Oscars , the 2020 awards arrive with few flashpoints of conflict .
The Academy sidestepped any possibility of repeating last year ’ s hosting snafu by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a row , to forgo a host .
The ceremony is taking place unusually early this year ( typically it happens at the end of February or the beginning of March ) , cutting the campaign season short .
But squabbles and scandals have been kept to a minimum .
Still , there ’ s once again a startling lack of diversity among the nominees — particularly in the four acting categories , in which only one nominee out of 19 is a person of color , and the directing category , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This has rekindled debate regarding the monolithic nature of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences ( the organization that hands out the Oscars ) .
As of 2019 , about 32 percent of the Academy ’ s roughly 9,000 members are women ; about 16 percent are from ethnic minorities .
That ’ s an increase from 2015 , when the numbers were 31 percent and 8 percent , respectively .
But the Academy still has a long way to go in making its ranks more inclusive .
The biggest change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The Best Foreign Language Feature category was renamed in April 2019 to Best International Feature , in an attempt to modernize it .
But the eligibility rules were not updated , so many of the problems with the category remain .
As for which movies and actors will win trophies on Sunday , there aren ’ t many sure bets .
A number of films — among them 1917 , Once Upon a Time in Hollywood , Parasite , and the most-nominated film , Joker — have won many precursor awards throughout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predict which way the Academy will swing , particularly in regards to the coveted title of Best Picture .
Other nominees , including Little Women , Marriage Story , The Irishman , Ford v Ferrari , and Jojo Rabbit , aren ’ t considered favorites by pundits , but have taken home a moderate number of awards as well and could win at the Oscars for their directors , screenplays , and actors .
So as in recent years , it ’ s anyone ’ s guess as to what will happen .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for film , and there ’ s a lot to celebrate .
How to watch the 2020 Oscars When : Sunday , February 9 , at 8 pm Eastern/5 pm Pacific .
ABC ’ s red carpet coverage begins at 6:30 pm Eastern/4:30 pm Pacific .
E !
will begin its red carpet coverage with a “ countdown ” at 1 pm Eastern/10 am Pacific , followed by live coverage beginning at 5 pm Eastern/2 pm Pacific .
Where : Live on ABC , or via the ABC livestream on ABC.com or the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carpet coverage will also be broadcast on the Academy ’ s live Twitter stream .
To livestream the ceremony at ABC.com or on the ABC app , you ’ ll need a cable TV provider login .
You must also be in one of the following markets : Chicago , Fresno , Houston , Los Angeles , New York City , Philadelphia , Raleigh-Durham , or San Francisco .
DirecTV , YouTube TV , AT & T TV Now , Hulu , and Comcast Xfinity subscribers can watch the ABC livestream in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oscars website .
Host : For the second year in a row , the Oscars will not have a host .
But a star-studded array of presenters will be on hand to give out the awards .

At last, the first Oscars of the new decade are upon us, and they’re as unpredictable as ever. The 2020 Academy Awards ceremony will air live from Los Angeles’s Dolby Theatre on Sunday, February 9, at 8 pm Eastern/5 pm Pacific on ABC. The awards will also stream live on Oscars.com and the Academy’s Facebook page.
Compared to the controversy-ridden 2019 Oscars, the 2020 awards arrive with few flashpoints of conflict. The Academy sidestepped any possibility of repeating last year’s hosting snafu by choosing, for the second time in a row, to forgo a host. The ceremony is taking place unusually early this year (typically it happens at the end of February or the beginning of March), cutting the campaign season short. But squabbles and scandals have been kept to a minimum.
Still, there’s once again a startling lack of diversity among the nominees — particularly in the four acting categories, in which only one nominee out of 19 is a person of color, and the directing category, in which all five nominees are men. This has rekindled debate regarding the monolithic nature of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (the organization that hands out the Oscars). As of 2019, about 32 percent of the Academy’s roughly 9,000 members are women; about 16 percent are from ethnic minorities. That’s an increase from 2015, when the numbers were 31 percent and 8 percent, respectively. But the Academy still has a long way to go in making its ranks more inclusive.
The biggest change since last year is a name change: The Best Foreign Language Feature category was renamed in April 2019 to Best International Feature, in an attempt to modernize it. But the eligibility rules were not updated, so many of the problems with the category remain.
As for which movies and actors will win trophies on Sunday, there aren’t many sure bets. A number of films — among them 1917, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Parasite, and the most-nominated film, Joker — have won many precursor awards throughout the season, making it difficult to predict which way the Academy will swing, particularly in regards to the coveted title of Best Picture. Other nominees, including Little Women, Marriage Story, The Irishman, Ford v Ferrari, and Jojo Rabbit, aren’t considered favorites by pundits, but have taken home a moderate number of awards as well and could win at the Oscars for their directors, screenplays, and actors.
Related How to win an Oscar
So as in recent years, it’s anyone’s guess as to what will happen. But 2019 was an unusually strong year for film, and there’s a lot to celebrate.
How to watch the 2020 Oscars
When: Sunday, February 9, at 8 pm Eastern/5 pm Pacific. ABC’s red carpet coverage begins at 6:30 pm Eastern/4:30 pm Pacific. E! will begin its red carpet coverage with a “countdown” at 1 pm Eastern/10 am Pacific, followed by live coverage beginning at 5 pm Eastern/2 pm Pacific.
Where: Live on ABC, or via the ABC livestream on ABC.com or the ABC app in supported markets. Red carpet coverage will also be broadcast on the Academy’s live Twitter stream.
To livestream the ceremony at ABC.com or on the ABC app, you’ll need a cable TV provider login. You must also be in one of the following markets: Chicago, Fresno, Houston, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, Raleigh-Durham, or San Francisco.
DirecTV, YouTube TV, AT&T TV Now, Hulu, and Comcast Xfinity subscribers can watch the ABC livestream in a longer list of markets available on the Oscars website.
Host: For the second year in a row, the Oscars will not have a host. But a star-studded array of presenters will be on hand to give out the awards.


vox--2020-02-09--Here’s the full list of 2020 Oscar nominees

The 2020 Oscars are finally here .
The 92nd installment of Hollywood ’ s most prestigious annual awards show , overseen by the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences , will take place on Sunday , February 9 , 2020 .
The ceremony will air live on ABC at 8 pm Eastern/5 pm Pacific .
There are nine nominees for Best Picture this year : Ford v Ferrari , The Irishman , Jojo Rabbit , Joker , Little Women , Marriage Story , 1917 , Once Upon a Time in Hollywood , and Parasite .
Across all categories , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Close behind are 1917 , Once Upon a Time in Hollywood , and The Irishman , with 10 nominations each .
Parasite , Jojo Rabbit , Little Women , and Marriage Story each nabbed six nominations , while Ford v Ferrari earned four .
But just because Joker has the most nominations doesn ’ t mean it will win the top prize .
Awards handed out over the past few weeks have made director Sam Mendes ’ s 1917 the Best Picture frontrunner ; the film has already been honored by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BAFTAs , and the Golden Globes .
The nominee slate has been widely criticized for its lack of diversity .
Just like last year , no women are nominated for Best Director ( including a snub of Greta Gerwig , whose acclaimed adaptation of Little Women is up for Best Picture ) .
In the acting categories , only one non-white actor is nominated — Cynthia Erivo for playing Harriet Tubman in Harriet .
The full list of 2020 Oscar nominees is below .
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood Quentin Tarantino , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pitt , Once Upon a Time in Hollywood Leonardo DiCaprio , Once Upon a Time in Hollywood Once Upon a Time in Hollywood Once Upon a Time in Hollywood Once Upon a Time in Hollywood Once Upon a Time in Hollywood “ I Can ’ t Let You Throw Yourself Away , ” Toy Story 4 Learning to Skateboard in a War Zone if You ’ re a Girl Once Upon a Time in Hollywood Once Upon a Time in Hollywood How to Train Your Dragon : The Hidden World

The 2020 Oscars are finally here. The 92nd installment of Hollywood’s most prestigious annual awards show, overseen by the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, will take place on Sunday, February 9, 2020. The ceremony will air live on ABC at 8 pm Eastern/5 pm Pacific.
There are nine nominees for Best Picture this year: Ford v Ferrari, The Irishman, Jojo Rabbit, Joker, Little Women, Marriage Story, 1917, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and Parasite.
Across all categories, Joker leads the pack with 11 nominations. Close behind are 1917, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and The Irishman, with 10 nominations each. Parasite, Jojo Rabbit, Little Women, and Marriage Story each nabbed six nominations, while Ford v Ferrari earned four.
But just because Joker has the most nominations doesn’t mean it will win the top prize. Awards handed out over the past few weeks have made director Sam Mendes’s 1917 the Best Picture frontrunner; the film has already been honored by the Producers Guild, Directors Guild, the BAFTAs, and the Golden Globes.
The nominee slate has been widely criticized for its lack of diversity. Just like last year, no women are nominated for Best Director (including a snub of Greta Gerwig, whose acclaimed adaptation of Little Women is up for Best Picture). In the acting categories, only one non-white actor is nominated — Cynthia Erivo for playing Harriet Tubman in Harriet.
The full list of 2020 Oscar nominees is below.
Related How to watch all 9 of the 2020 Oscars Best Picture nominees
Best Picture
Ford v Ferrari
The Irishman
Jojo Rabbit
Joker
Little Women
Marriage Story
1917
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Parasite
Related Why Parasite deserves to win Best Picture
Director
Martin Scorsese, The Irishman
Todd Phillips, Joker
Sam Mendes, 1917
Quentin Tarantino, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Bong Joon-ho, Parasite
Actress in a Supporting Role
Kathy Bates, Richard Jewell
Laura Dern, Marriage Story
Scarlett Johansson, Jojo Rabbit
Florence Pugh, Little Women
Margot Robbie, Bombshell
Actor in a Supporting Role
Tom Hanks, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
Anthony Hopkins, The Two Popes
Al Pacino, The Irishman
Joe Pesci, The Irishman
Brad Pitt, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Actor in a Leading Role
Antonio Banderas, Pain and Glory
Leonardo DiCaprio, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Adam Driver, Marriage Story
Joaquin Phoenix, Joker
Jonathan Pryce, The Two Popes
Actress in a Leading Role
Cynthia Erivo, Harriet
Scarlett Johansson, Marriage Story
Saoirse Ronan, Little Women
Charlize Theron, Bombshell
Renée Zellweger, Judy
Related The lack of diversity among the 2020 Oscar nominees feels disappointingly familiar
Adapted Screenplay
The Irishman
Jojo Rabbit
Joker
Little Women
The Two Popes
Original Screenplay
Knives Out
Marriage Story
1917
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Parasite
Costume Design
The Irishman
Jojo Rabbit
Joker
Little Women
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Sound Mixing
Ad Astra
Ford v Ferrari
Joker
1917
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Sound Editing
Ford v Ferrari
Joker
1917
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
Original Score
Joker
Little Women
Marriage Story
1917
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
Original Song
“I Can’t Let You Throw Yourself Away,” Toy Story 4
“(I’m Gonna) Love Me Again,” Rocketman
“I’m Standing With You,” Breakthrough
“Into the Unknown,” Frozen 2
“Stand Up,” Harriet
Documentary Feature
American Factory
The Cave
The Edge of Democracy
For Sama
Honeyland
Documentary Short Subject
In the Absence
Learning to Skateboard in a War Zone if You’re a Girl
Life Overtakes Me
St. Louis Superman
Walk, Run, Chacha
International Feature Film (previously Foreign Language Film)
Corpus Christi (Poland)
Honeyland (North Macedonia)
Les Misérables (France)
Pain & Glory (Spain)
Parasite (South Korea)
Production Design
The Irishman
Jojo Rabbit
1917
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Parasite
Editing
Ford v Ferrari
The Irishman
Jojo Rabbit
Joker
Parasite
Cinematography
The Irishman
Joker
The Lighthouse
1917
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Visual Effects
Avengers: Endgame
The Irishman
The Lion King
1917
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
Makeup and Hairstyling
Bombshell
Joker
Judy
Maleficent: Mistress of Evil
1917
Animated Feature Film
How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World
I Lost My Body
Klaus
Missing Link
Toy Story 4
Animated Short
Dcera (Daughter)
Hair Love
Kitbull
Memorable
Sister
Live Action Short
Brotherhood
Nefta Football Club
The Neighbors’ Window
Saria
A Sister


vox--2020-02-08--What we know about a Thai mass shooting

What we know about a Thai mass shooting

At least 20 people have been killed and at least 31 wounded Saturday in the city of Nakhon Ratchasima , about 155 miles northeast of Bangkok .
The suspected shooter , a Thai soldier , took people hostage and barricaded himself inside inside a shopping mall with the hostages and an assault rifle , according to local news outlets .
The suspect streamed himself on Facebook Live Saturday evening local time , saying he was “ tired , I can barely move my fingers , ” according to the Bangkok Post .
Shortly before posting the video , the suspected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ nobody can avoid death , ” and that “ being rich from taking advantage of others , do they think they can use money in hell ?
” The shooting comes around a month after another high-profile rampage in a mall in Lopburi in which three people died and four others were wounded .
While gun purchases are legal in Thailand , mass shootings are rare , especially in the northern regions of the country , according to the Associated Press .
This story is still developing .
Here ’ s what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t : What we know • Saturday afternoon local time at the Suatham Phithak military installation in Nakhon Ratchasima , a Thai soldier shot and killed his commanding officer , Col. Anantharot Krasae , 48 .
• A Thai Defense Ministry spokesman has identified the suspected shooter as 32-year-old Sgt .
Maj. Jakrapanth Thomma .
• The suspect is believed to have killed at least two other people at the base : A 63-year-old woman and a second soldier , before seizing weapons , ammunition , and a military vehicle .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the city ’ s Terminal 21 shopping complex .
He left his vehicle and entered the mall shooting .
• At least 20 people have been killed in total .
At least 31 people have been wounded , with 10 of them in critical condition .
• Videos on social media showed a large fire outside the mall , which some local outlets report was an explosion caused by a gas canister hit with a bullet .
• Officials said they had successfully evacuated more than 100 people from the mall .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming from inside the mall as of 3 am local time .
The suspect is believed to still be inside the facility .
• Police posted a “ most wanted ” photo on Twitter , urging people in nearby areas to be cautious .
What we don ’ t know : • The exact number of those killed or wounded .
• The condition of all of the wounded .
• The shooter ’ s motive .
Defense Ministry spokesman Kongcheep Tantrawanit told Reuters : “ We don ’ t know why he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mad .
”

At least 29 people were killed and at least 57 wounded Saturday in the city of Nakhon Ratchasima, about 155 miles northeast of Bangkok.
The suspected shooter, a Thai soldier, took people hostage and barricaded himself inside inside a shopping mall with the hostages and an assault rifle, according to local news outlets.
The suspect streamed himself on Facebook Live Saturday evening local time, saying he was “tired, I can barely move my fingers,” according to the Bangkok Post. Shortly before posting the video, the suspected shooter wrote a social media post stating “nobody can avoid death,” and that “being rich from taking advantage of others, do they think they can use money in hell?”
The suspect was shot and killed by police early Sunday.
The shooting comes around a month after another high-profile rampage in a mall in Lopburi in which three people died and four others were wounded. While gun purchases are legal in Thailand, mass shootings are rare, especially in the northern regions of the country, according to the Associated Press.
What we know
Saturday afternoon local time at the Suatham Phithak military installation in Nakhon Ratchasima, a Thai soldier shot and killed his commanding officer, Col. Anantharot Krasae, 48.
Sunday, Thai Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha said the shooting was the result of “a personal conflict ... over a house deal.”
After killing the colonel, the suspect — identified as 32-year-old Sgt. Maj. Jakrapanth Thomma — is believed to have killed at least two other people at the base: A 63-year-old woman and a second soldier, before seizing weapons, ammunition, and a military vehicle.
The suspect then drove to the city’s Terminal 21 shopping complex. He left his vehicle and entered the mall shooting.
As of Sunday evening, 29 people were killed. At least 57 people were wounded.
Police shot and killed the suspect Sunday morning local time, after evacuating the mall the surrounding area.
What we don’t know:


vox--2020-02-09--Spike Lee’s purple and gold Oscars suit pays tribute to Kobe Bryant

Director Spike Lee paid tribute to basketball player Kobe Bryant on the Oscars red carpet , dressed in a royal purple Gucci suit with the number “ 24 ” embroidered on his front lapels and underneath his back collar .
He wore a pair of Nike Kobe 9 high-top shoes , along with purple-rimmed glasses and cap .
The suit , which both references Bryant ’ s iconic number 24 and his daughter Gianna ’ s jersey number 2 , is a “ tribute , honor , and homage , ” Lee told ABC7 on the red carpet .
Lee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ player for over a decade before his untimely death on January 26 .
Bryant , 41 , was killed in a helicopter crash in Calabasas , California , along with his daughter Gianna , 13 , and seven others .
Lee directed the 2009 documentary Kobe Doin ’ Work , and was given access to Bryant ’ s life for one day in 2008 .
In a recent interview with Extra TV , Lee said he was “ still shook ” over Bryant ’ s sudden death .
“ Every day is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at it , and I ’ m honored to be representing , to present an Oscar , ” Lee said .
Last year at the Oscars , Lee paid tribute to another legendary figure : Prince .
The director , dressed head-to-toe in purple , wore a custom diamond necklace with Prince ’ s symbol and gold Jordan sneakers he personally commissioned .
Lee previously told the New York Times , “ I win the Oscar on the red carpet .
Men , women , I don ’ t care if they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be messing with the Jordans I ’ m going to be wearing .
I ’ m going to be as clean as the board of health .
I ’ m going to be sharp as a razor.
” Sign up for The Goods ’ newsletter .
Twice a week , we ’ ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy , why we buy it , and why it matters .

Director Spike Lee paid tribute to basketball player Kobe Bryant on the Oscars red carpet, dressed in a royal purple Gucci suit with the number “24” embroidered on his front lapels and underneath his backa collar. He wore a pair of Nike Kobe 9 high-top shoes, along with purple-rimmed glasses and a cap. The suit, which both references Bryant’s iconic number 24 and his daughter Gianna’s jersey number 2, is a “tribute, honor, and homage,” Lee told ABC7 on the red carpet.
Spike Lee arrived to the #Oscars in a custom Kobe suit pic.twitter.com/xB4pbiqfVK — ESPN (@espn) February 9, 2020
Lee has known the former Los Angeles Lakers player for over a decade before his untimely death on January 26, 2020. Bryant, 41, was killed in a helicopter crash in Calabasas, California, along with his daughter Gianna, 13, and seven others.
Lee directed the 2009 documentary Kobe Doin’ Work, and was given access to Bryant’s life for one day in 2008. In a recent interview with Extra TV, Lee said he was “still shook” over Bryant’s sudden death. “Every day is a struggle. You just gotta keep at it, and I’m honored to be representing, to present an Oscar,” Lee said.
Last year at the Oscars, Lee paid tribute to another legendary figure: Prince. The director, dressed head-to-toe in purple, wore a custom diamond necklace with Prince’s symbol and gold Jordan sneakers he personally commissioned. Lee previously told the New York Times, “I win the Oscar on the red carpet. Men, women, I don’t care if they’re wearing 15-inch heels. They can’t be messing with the Jordans I’m going to be wearing. I’m going to be as clean as the board of health. I’m going to be sharp as a razor.”
Sign up for The Goods’ newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.


vox--2020-02-09--The Iowa Democratic Party releases preliminary national delegate counts

The Iowa Democratic Party has completed its review of caucuses results from 95 precincts called into question by Democratic presidential candidates , and has made a preliminary announcement of how many national delegates each candidate can expect .
Should these results be made final , South Bend Mayor Buttigieg would receive 14 of 41 delegates , Sen. Bernie Sanders would receive 12 , Sen. Elizabeth Warren would get eight , former Vice President Joe Biden would be awarded six , and Sen Amy Klobuchar would get one .
Again , these numbers are preliminary .
Candidates have until 1 pm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to request a formal recount .
The review that concluded Sunday was requested by the Warren , Buttigieg , and Sanders campaigns over concerns of inconsistencies between the reported results and official records .
It did not involve recounting any results .
According to emails reviewed by the New York Times ’ s Trip Gabriel , an Iowa Democratic Party lawyer said the party could not change the voting records tallied on caucus worksheets even if blatant mistakes were found in the review , because doing so would violate election law .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ correct mistakes — other than those made in the reporting of the worksheets — would be a formal recount .
Such a recount would require checking individual voter “ preference cards ” — cards on which caucus-goers recorded who they were caucusing for — but not all of those cards are believed to be accounted for .
These preliminary delegate totals come nearly a week after the caucuses themselves , and ahead of their release , a number of candidates and party officials expressed frustration with how the process has unfolded .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Iowa Democratic Party did , ” Sanders said on CNN ’ s State of the Union Sunday morning , adding later , “ The incompetence there in Iowa was just extraordinary.
” Wednesday , Buttigieg ’ s campaign said the Iowa Democratic Party “ did the right thing ” in delaying results to ensure they ’ re accurate , but was quick to claim victory heading into the New Hampshire primary .
The Iowa caucuses “ represent an astonishing victory for our movement , ” he said on Tuesday .
While the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party , Democratic National Committee ( DNC ) Chair Tom Perez also expressed his frustration with state leaders Sunday , and suggested Iowa ’ s struggles may change how the DNC conducts elections going forward .
“ I ’ m frustrated , I ’ m mad as hell , everybody is , ” Perez said told CNN Sunday .
“ I think what we ’ re going to do at the end of this cycle is have a further conversation about whether or not state parties should be running elections.
” State party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independent investigation of what happened is necessary ” — but first , the party needs to ensure no campaign will challenge its results and formally declare a winner .
The Iowa caucuses are usually very important to presidential primaries , like it or not .
Most Democratic presidential nominees in the past 40 years began their rise by winning the Iowa caucuses .
The contest has a huge effect on a candidate ’ s chances going into all of the primaries that follow , increasing media coverage and oftentimes fueling donor support , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s one reason why the unusual delay in Iowa results is a major kick in the gut for Democrats seeking to fire up voters .
So why did this happen ?
It comes down to a potent mix of technical problems and human error .
For the first time , precincts were tasked with reporting multiple results : the actual number of votes each candidate received in both the first and second rounds of caucusing and the amount of state delegates each candidate was to receive based on those second-round vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through a new smartphone app — also a first .
People had trouble using the app , and phone lines used to call in results as a backup option were jammed for hours — in part because of trolling efforts .
The party also instituted some rules changes around how caucus-goers were allowed to switch their support in an attempt to streamline the process and to make it less confusing .
However , all of these changes introduced more opportunity for human error .
The Iowa Democratic Party said when results started coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there were inconsistencies with the reports.
” Iowa Democratic Party communications director Mandy McClure said afterward that the party could resolve these inconsistencies , but needed time to review photos of the results and “ a paper trail ” to do so , noting that there was no malicious intent that affected totals : “ This is not a hack or an intrusion.
” That review took time , and led to results being released in batches over much of last week .
And that led to Perez called upon the state party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or auditing the results for accuracy days after they were first expected to be released in full .
“ Enough is enough , ” he wrote Thursday on Twitter .
The chaos has put some extra oomph behind calls to strip Iowa of its first in the nation status ; even before the snafu , those in favor of changing state voting order argued Iowa doesn ’ t represent the diversity of the US and uses an inaccessible voting system .
Perez said Sunday those calls for change will be taken seriously — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a conversation that will absolutely happen after the election cycle , ” he said on State of the Union .
If new concerns should emerge following this latest review , it remains to be seen whether any candidates will request a formal recount .
And even if a campaign were to request a recount , how much of a difference it could make for any particular candidate is not clear .
Buttigieg and Sanders , the candidates fighting over first place , have each already declared victory .
And most contenders — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the opaque results — have already turned their attention to New Hampshire , whose citizens have their primary on February 11 .

The Iowa Democratic Party has completed its review of caucus results from 95 precincts called into question by Democratic presidential candidates, and has made a preliminary announcement of how many national delegates each candidate can expect.
Should these results be made final, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Buttigieg would receive 14 of 41 delegates, Sen. Bernie Sanders would receive 12, Sen. Elizabeth Warren would get eight, former Vice President Joe Biden would be awarded six, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar would get one.
Again, these numbers are preliminary. Candidates have until 1 pm ET on Monday to challenge them, and to request a formal recount.
The review that concluded Sunday was requested by the Warren, Buttigieg, and Sanders campaigns over concerns of inconsistencies between the reported results and official records. It did not involve recounting any results.
According to emails reviewed by the New York Times’s Trip Gabriel, an Iowa Democratic Party lawyer said the party could not change the voting records tallied on caucus worksheets even if blatant mistakes were found in the review, because doing so would violate election law. The lawyer said the only way to correct mistakes — other than those made in the reporting of the worksheets — would be a formal recount.
Such a recount would require checking individual voter “preference cards” — cards on which caucus-goers recorded who they were caucusing for — but not all of those cards are believed to be accounted for.
These preliminary delegate totals come nearly a week after the caucuses themselves, and ahead of their release, a number of candidates and party officials expressed frustration with how the process has unfolded.
“They screwed it up badly is what the Iowa Democratic Party did,” Sanders said on CNN’s State of the Union Sunday morning, adding later, “The incompetence there in Iowa was just extraordinary.”
“The incompetence there in Iowa was just extraordinary,” Sen. Bernie Sanders says about the delay in results from the Iowa caucuses. https://t.co/HmJeBCBgzD #CNNSOTU pic.twitter.com/57xfPWehTi — State of the Union (@CNNSotu) February 9, 2020
Wednesday, Buttigieg’s campaign said the Iowa Democratic Party “did the right thing” in delaying results to ensure they’re accurate, but was quick to claim victory heading into the New Hampshire primary. The Iowa caucuses “represent an astonishing victory for our movement,” he said on Tuesday.
While the caucuses are run by the Iowa Democratic Party, Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Tom Perez also expressed his frustration with state leaders Sunday, and suggested Iowa’s struggles may change how the DNC conducts elections going forward.
“I’m frustrated, I’m mad as hell, everybody is,” Perez said told CNN Sunday. “I think what we’re going to do at the end of this cycle is have a further conversation about whether or not state parties should be running elections.”
State party chair Troy Price has agreed “an independent investigation of what happened is necessary” — but first, the party needs to ensure no campaign will challenge its results and formally declare a winner.
Technical problems and human error highlighted a messy electoral system
The Iowa caucuses are usually very important to presidential primaries, like it or not. Most Democratic presidential nominees in the past 40 years began their rise by winning the Iowa caucuses. The contest has a huge effect on a candidate’s chances going into all of the primaries that follow, increasing media coverage and oftentimes fueling donor support, which can snowball into further popularity.
That’s one reason why the unusual delay in Iowa results is a major kick in the gut for Democrats seeking to fire up voters.
So why did this happen? It comes down to a potent mix of technical problems and human error.
For the first time, precincts were tasked with reporting multiple results: the actual number of votes each candidate received in both the first and second rounds of caucusing and the amount of state delegates each candidate was to receive based on those second-round vote totals. Those results were be reported through a new smartphone app — also a first. People had trouble using the app, and phone lines used to call in results as a backup option were jammed for hours — in part because of trolling efforts.
The party also instituted some rules changes around how caucus-goers were allowed to switch their support in an attempt to streamline the process and to make it less confusing.
However, all of these changes introduced more opportunity for human error.
The Iowa Democratic Party said when results started coming in, “it became clear that there were inconsistencies with the reports.” Iowa Democratic Party communications director Mandy McClure said afterward that the party could resolve these inconsistencies, but needed time to review photos of the results and “a paper trail” to do so, noting that there was no malicious intent that affected totals: “This is not a hack or an intrusion.”
That review took time, and led to results being released in batches over much of last week.
And that led to Perez called upon the state party to immediately begin “recanvassing” — or auditing the results for accuracy days after they were first expected to be released in full. “Enough is enough,” he wrote Thursday on Twitter.
The chaos has put some extra oomph behind calls to strip Iowa of its first in the nation status; even before the snafu, those in favor of changing state voting order argued Iowa doesn’t represent the diversity of the US and uses an inaccessible voting system.
Perez said Sunday those calls for change will be taken seriously — just not yet: “That’s a conversation that will absolutely happen after the election cycle,” he said on State of the Union.
If new concerns should emerge following this latest review, it remains to be seen whether any candidates will request a formal recount. And even if a campaign were to request a recount, how much of a difference it could make for any particular candidate is not clear.
Buttigieg and Sanders, the candidates fighting over first place, have each already declared victory. And most contenders — including those presidential candidates still grumbling over the opaque results — have already turned their attention to New Hampshire, whose citizens have their primary on February 11.


vox--2020-02-09--As they make their final pitches to New Hampshire voters, Democrats amp up their attacks

Democratic presidential candidates are delivering their final pitches to voters in New Hampshire ahead of Tuesday ’ s primary , and those considered to be in the race ’ s top tier are making pointed attacks a key part of those last minute messages .
The candidates largely avoided personal attacks , but the strategy nevertheless is a marked turn in a primary race that has — not always successfully — attempted to remain civil , and a reminder that the race ’ s stakes are growing ever-higher as as state primaries unfold .
Sen. Bernie Sanders and former South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whom have declared themselves the winner of the Iowa caucuses — targeted each others ’ fundraising strategies , with Sanders characterizing himself as a candidate powered by grassroots support and Buttigieg as someone who is accepting of everyone .
“ One of the areas of contrast [ with Buttigieg ] , to be honest with you , is at last count he has about 40 billionaires who are contributing to his campaign , ” said Sanders on CBS ’ Face the Nation .
“ Bernie ’ s pretty rich , and I would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Buttigieg said on CNN ’ s State of the Union .
“ This is about taking everybody into the fight ...
I ’ m not a fan of the current campaign finance system , but I ’ m also insistent that we ’ ve got to go into this with all of the support that we can get.
” Warren — who has made her rejection of corporate donations a key part of her campaign — took a more subtle dig at Buttigieg , while offering explicit criticism of former New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ABC ’ s This Week that “ the coalition of billionaires is not exactly what ’ s going to carry us over the top.
” “ Democrats and Republicans get that they ’ re getting the short end of the stick , and what ’ s the reason for that ?
It ’ s corruption , ” she said .
“ It ’ s a bunch of billionaires that make big campaign contributions or reach in their own pockets like Michael Bloomberg does.
” Buttigieg and former Vice President Joe Biden tousled over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington in the wake of a cutting ad from the Biden campaign lampooning Buttigieg ’ s time as a small-city mayor and his lack of support among black voters .
“ In order to win ... you ’ re going to have to in a lot of places that in fact have very diverse populations , ” Biden said on ABC ’ s This Week .
“ So the assertion that he ’ s ready across the board , I don ’ t see it.
” Biden also took aim at Sanders , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be incredibly more difficult ” for him to beat Trump as a Democratic socialist .
One of the criticisms of the 2016 Democratic primary was that it became too divisive ; and that the Democratic Party did not unite once Hillary Clinton became the nominee .
Clinton has made this critique herself often in recent weeks , like when she said on the podcast Your Primary Playlist , “ All the way up until the end , a lot of people highly identified with [ Sanders ’ s ] campaign were urging people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to vote ... it had an impact.
” These attacks don ’ t by any means threaten to divide the party — and all the candidates have stressed they will unite behind whoever wins the nomination — but they are a potent reminder of just how close the race remains ahead of a state that often shapes the field ahead of Super Tuesday .
The impending New Hampshire primary is raising the stakes for candidates to tear each other down The New Hampshire primary , the first primary in the nation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down the field , and for that reason , is usually closely watched .
As Vox ’ s Ella Nilsen has noted , winning New Hampshire also makes a give candidate more likely to become the nominee : And this year , the state ’ s already important role has been heightened by the chaos that unfolded last week during the Iowa caucuses .
No official winner has been declared in that contest , in which both Sanders and Buttigieg have claimed to have come out on top .
As long as voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Hampshire , should provide Americans with their first clear picture of who voters — rather than polls — see as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination .
Essentially , Nilsen notes , “ a strong New Hampshire finish can breathe new life into the top three candidates ’ campaigns .
Those who finish lower will find the primary to be another nail in the coffin.
” Although primary voting is just over 24 hours away , there are still a number of undecided votes to be won — recent polls have found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hampshire ’ s voters say they haven ’ t made up their minds , or could be swayed to realign their support .
Polling averages show Sanders as the New Hampshire primary ’ s clear frontrunner , but Buttigieg has been rising in the polls at a rapid clip , and the margin of error of most of those surveys — as well as the large number of undecided voters — means a come-from-behind victory by Warren , or even Biden , is not impossible .
It is with all of this at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another this weekend .
And whoever comes out on top will likely have a little more of that sought-after momentum going into the Nevada and South Carolina primaries later this month .

Democratic presidential candidates are delivering their final pitches to voters in New Hampshire ahead of Tuesday’s primary, and those considered to be in the race’s top tier are making pointed attacks a key part of those last minute messages.
The candidates largely avoided personal attacks, but the strategy nevertheless is a marked turn in a primary race that has — not always successfully — attempted to remain civil, and a reminder that the race’s stakes are growing ever-higher as as state primaries unfold.
Sen. Bernie Sanders and former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg — both of whom have declared themselves the winner of the Iowa caucuses — targeted each others’ fundraising strategies, with Sanders characterizing himself as a candidate powered by grassroots support and Buttigieg as someone who is accepting of everyone.
“One of the areas of contrast [with Buttigieg], to be honest with you, is at last count he has about 40 billionaires who are contributing to his campaign,” said Sanders on CBS’ Face the Nation.
“Bernie’s pretty rich, and I would happily accept a contribution from him,” Buttigieg said on CNN’s State of the Union. “This is about taking everybody into the fight ... I’m not a fan of the current campaign finance system, but I’m also insistent that we’ve got to go into this with all of the support that we can get.”
Pete Buttigieg on Bernie Sanders fundraising attacks: "Bernie's pretty rich, and I would happily accept a contribution from him... I'm not a fan of the current campaign finance system, but I'm also insistent that we've got to go into this with all the support we can get" #CNNSOTU pic.twitter.com/4DuWyh4DYd — State of the Union (@CNNSotu) February 9, 2020
Warren — who has made her rejection of corporate donations a key part of her campaign — took a more subtle dig at Buttigieg, while offering explicit criticism of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, saying on ABC’s This Week that “the coalition of billionaires is not exactly what’s going to carry us over the top.”
“Democrats and Republicans get that they’re getting the short end of the stick, and what’s the reason for that? It’s corruption,” she said. “It’s a bunch of billionaires that make big campaign contributions or reach in their own pockets like Michael Bloomberg does.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren responds to Pete Buttigieg, who defended taking money from billionaires, saying you need to build the biggest coalition you can.
“The coalition of billionaires is not exactly what’s going to carry us over the top,” Warren says. https://t.co/nPQ57Pvs7t pic.twitter.com/vMxPj5k7C6 — This Week (@ThisWeekABC) February 9, 2020
Buttigieg and former Vice President Joe Biden tousled over their track records in middle America and Washington in the wake of a cutting ad from the Biden campaign lampooning Buttigieg’s time as a small-city mayor and his lack of support among black voters.
“In order to win ... you’re going to have to in a lot of places that in fact have very diverse populations,” Biden said on ABC’s This Week. “So the assertion that he’s ready across the board, I don’t see it.”
Biden also took aim at Sanders, saying “it’s going to be incredibly more difficult” for him to beat Trump as a Democratic socialist.
One of the criticisms of the 2016 Democratic primary was that it became too divisive; and that the Democratic Party did not unite once Hillary Clinton became the nominee. Clinton has made this critique herself often in recent weeks, like when she said on the podcast Your Primary Playlist, “All the way up until the end, a lot of people highly identified with [Sanders’s] campaign were urging people to vote third party, urging people not to vote ... it had an impact.”
These attacks don’t by any means threaten to divide the party — and all the candidates have stressed they will unite behind whoever wins the nomination — but they are a potent reminder of just how close the race remains ahead of a state that often shapes the field ahead of Super Tuesday.
The impending New Hampshire primary is raising the stakes for candidates to tear each other down
The New Hampshire primary, the first primary in the nation, often plays a crucial role in cutting down the field, and for that reason, is usually closely watched. As Vox’s Ella Nilsen has noted, winning New Hampshire also makes a give candidate more likely to become the nominee:
New Hampshire wields a substantial amount of political power; no major-party nominee in modern history has won without coming first or second in New Hampshire. Winning here, all else equal, increases a candidate’s expected share of the primary vote by 27 percentage points, political scientist William Mayer wrote in 2004.
And this year, the state’s already important role has been heightened by the chaos that unfolded last week during the Iowa caucuses. No official winner has been declared in that contest, in which both Sanders and Buttigieg have claimed to have come out on top. As long as voting does not run into any problems, New Hampshire, should provide Americans with their first clear picture of who voters — rather than polls — see as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination.
Essentially, Nilsen notes, “a strong New Hampshire finish can breathe new life into the top three candidates’ campaigns. Those who finish lower will find the primary to be another nail in the coffin.”
Although primary voting is just over 24 hours away, there are still a number of undecided votes to be won — recent polls have found that as many as half of New Hampshire’s voters say they haven’t made up their minds, or could be swayed to realign their support.
Polling averages show Sanders as the New Hampshire primary’s clear frontrunner, but Buttigieg has been rising in the polls at a rapid clip, and the margin of error of most of those surveys — as well as the large number of undecided voters — means a come-from-behind victory by Warren, or even Biden, is not impossible.
It is with all of this at stake that the candidates sniped at one another this weekend. And whoever comes out on top will likely have a little more of that sought-after momentum going into the Nevada and South Carolina primaries later this month.


vox--2020-02-10--We don’t talk enough about animal suffering. That’s why Joaquin Phoenix’s Oscars speech matters.

Joaquin Phoenix has been speaking his mind as he ’ s made the rounds on the awards circuit .
During his Golden Globes acceptance speech for his Best Actor win for Joker , he talked about climate change .
At last week ’ s BAFTA awards , he talked about systemic racism in the acting community .
And at Sunday night ’ s Oscars , where he again won Best Actor , he talked about another enormous societal issue , one that seems to be gaining more visibility recently : the rights of animals .
[ We have to ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voiceless .
I ’ ve been thinking a lot about some of the distressing issues that we are facing collectively .
I think at times we feel , or were made to feel , that we champion different causes , but for me , I see commonality .
I think , whether we ’ re talking about gender inequality or racism or queer rights or indigenous rights or animal rights , we ’ re talking about the fight against injustice .
We ’ re talking about the fight against the belief that one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , one gender or one species has the right to dominate , control and use and exploit another with impunity .
It was a powerful speech , but what made it stand out from other similar awareness-raising speeches we ’ ve heard from the Oscar stage was its explicit calling out of speciesism .
Ethicists and advocates have been arguing for a long time that modern factory farming is unconscionable and that animals , like people , deserve to be part of our circle of moral concern .
But rarely have they commanded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ By including “ animal rights ” in the same sentence as a litany of other pressing issues — gender inequality , racism , queer rights , and indigenous rights — Phoenix elevated concern for the welfare of animals as something no less important than caring for fellow human beings .
Less than 5 percent of Americans are vegetarians and vegans , and it ’ s still the case that many people have barely heard the moral case for the end of factory farming .
It ’ s certainly a topic that doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Even a committed vegan like erstwhile presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker ( D-NJ ) couldn ’ t quite give the cause of ending animal suffering a full-throated airing during a primetime presidential debate ( though to be fair he did put forward an ambitious plan to end factory farming ) .
Perhaps because he didn ’ t anticipate needing to win over Iowans , Joaquin was less circumspect .
We feel entitled to artificially inseminate a cow , and when she gives birth , we steal her baby , even though her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we take her milk , that ’ s intended for her calf , and we put it in our coffee and our cereal , and I think we fear the idea of personal change because we think that we have to sacrifice something to give something up .
But human beings , at our best , are so inventive and creative and ingenious , and I think that when we use love and compassion as our guiding principles , we can create , develop and implement systems of change that are beneficial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environment .
I ’ m no Oscar historian , but that ’ s probably the most detailed jeremiad about the plight of animals on the Academy ’ s stage ever .
( It should be noted that this wasn ’ t the first time Phoenix has mentioned the issue — he gave a shout-out to the Hollywood Foreign Press at the Golden Globes for serving a vegan meal at the ceremony . )
That animal rights was the issue mentioned on a stage as big as this one reflects that something is changing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the past few years , states have passed laws restricting some of the worst cruelties of factory farming , and courts have overturned laws banning undercover investigations on factory farms and limiting sales of plant-based meat alternatives .
Meatless burger sales are soaring — even among meat-eaters — suggesting that lots of Americans are interested in eating products not derived from factory farms and slaughterhouses .
The lives of animals — billions of which we slaughter every year — deserve consideration up there with the other issues on which Phoenix has spoken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it happen at the Oscars .
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we ’ ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world ’ s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good .
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions , grants , and sponsorships .
Learn more here .

Joaquin Phoenix has been speaking his mind as he’s made the rounds on the awards circuit. During his Golden Globes acceptance speech for his Best Actor win for Joker, he talked about climate change. At last week’s BAFTA awards, he talked about systemic racism in the acting community.
And at Sunday night’s Oscars, where he again won Best Actor, he talked about another enormous societal issue, one that seems to be gaining more visibility recently: the rights of animals.
Here’s what Phoenix said:
[We have to] continue to use our voice for the voiceless. I’ve been thinking a lot about some of the distressing issues that we are facing collectively. I think at times we feel, or were made to feel, that we champion different causes, but for me, I see commonality. I think, whether we’re talking about gender inequality or racism or queer rights or indigenous rights or animal rights, we’re talking about the fight against injustice. We’re talking about the fight against the belief that one nation, one people, one race, one gender or one species has the right to dominate, control and use and exploit another with impunity.
It was a powerful speech, but what made it stand out from other similar awareness-raising speeches we’ve heard from the Oscar stage was its explicit calling-out of speciesism.
Ethicists and advocates have been arguing for a long time that modern factory farming is unconscionable and that animals, like people, deserve to be part of our circle of moral concern. But rarely have they commanded a platform like Phoenix’s.
By including “animal rights” in the same sentence as a litany of other pressing issues — gender inequality, racism, queer rights, and indigenous rights — Phoenix elevated concern for the welfare of animals as something no less important than caring for fellow human beings.
Less than 5 percent of Americans are vegetarians and vegans, and it’s still the case that many people have barely heard the moral case for the end of factory farming. It’s certainly not a topic that comes up often on national TV. Even a committed vegan like erstwhile presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) couldn’t quite give the cause of ending animal suffering a full-throated airing during a primetime presidential debate (though, to be fair, he did put forward an ambitious plan to end factory farming).
Perhaps because he didn’t anticipate needing to win over Iowans, Joaquin was less circumspect:
We feel entitled to artificially inseminate a cow, and when she gives birth, we steal her baby, even though her cries of anguish are unmistakable. Then, we take her milk, that’s intended for her calf, and we put it in our coffee and our cereal, and I think we fear the idea of personal change because we think that we have to sacrifice something to give something up. But human beings, at our best, are so inventive and creative and ingenious, and I think that when we use love and compassion as our guiding principles, we can create, develop and implement systems of change that are beneficial to all sentient beings and to the environment.
I’m no Oscar historian, but that’s probably the most detailed jeremiad about the plight of animals on the Academy’s stage ever. (It should be noted that this wasn’t the first time Phoenix has mentioned the issue — he gave a shoutout to the Hollywood Foreign Press at the Golden Globes for serving a vegan meal at the ceremony.)
That animal rights was the issue mentioned on a stage as big as this one reflects that something is changing in the fight for animal rights.
In the past few years, states have passed laws restricting some of the worst cruelties of factory farming, and courts have overturned laws banning undercover investigations on factory farms and limiting sales of plant-based meat alternatives. Meatless burger sales are soaring — even among meat eaters — suggesting that lots of Americans are interested in eating products not derived from factory farms and slaughterhouses.
The lives of animals, billions of which we slaughter every year, deserve consideration up there with the other issues on which Phoenix has spoken out. It was cool to see it happen at the Oscars.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we’ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world’s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good.
vox-mark Sign up for the newsletter Future Perfect Each week, we explore unique solutions to some of the world's biggest problems. Thanks for signing up! Check your inbox for a welcome email. Email (required) Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . You can opt out at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. For more newsletters, check out our newsletters page Subscribe
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions, grants, and sponsorships. Learn more here.


vox--2020-02-10--6 winners and 5 losers from the 2020 Oscars

The 2020 Oscars ended on a triumphant note , with Parasite becoming the first non-English-language film to take home the trophy for Best Picture .
The history-making moment felt as if the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences might be moving forward from its often hidebound traditions , albeit incredibly fitfully .
( This was still a year when diversity was discussed more than it was actually displayed , lest we forget . )
But Parasite ’ s unprecedented win also capped off a show that was weird and unfocused far too often , with a long running time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yes , many of the winners were cool , and Parasite ’ s Best Picture win retroactively gave the entire evening an air of historic importance .
But in the moment , it was dull , dull , dull to watch .
So who were the winners of this year ’ s ceremony , beyond Parasite ?
And who were the losers — beyond Netflix , which tossed tons of money after what ended up being two Oscar wins ?
Well , the Vox culture team has analyzed the awards and come away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the 92nd Academy Awards , starting with the biggest winner of them all ... Parasite went into the night with six nominations , and ended up winning four major awards : Best Original Screenplay , Best Director , International Feature Film , and the biggest award of the night , Best Picture .
It also made history , becoming the first South Korean film to win the Best International Feature Film category ( which was previously known as Best Foreign Language Film ) and the first non-English-language film to win Best Picture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parasite ’ s humble and very gracious director and co-writer Bong Joon-ho thank his cast , his supporters , and his fellow nominees at every opportunity .
—Alex Abad-Santos Netflix , by some estimates , spent well over $ 100 million on its 2020 Oscar campaigns .
Though the streamer refuted that number , it was clear that the company — which joined the Motion Picture Association of America prior to the 2019 Oscars , solidifying its position as one of Hollywood ’ s biggest players — was pouring resources into its awards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proved it could be a heavy hitter at the awards , with Roma winning three of its 10 nominations .
But this year , Netflix wanted more , and released a hefty pool of possible awards contenders .
Typically , studios will back a movie ’ s awards campaign to the tune of $ 5 million to $ 20 million .
Industry insiders estimated that Netflix was spending at least $ 20 million apiece on its two biggest contenders : Martin Scorsese ’ s The Irishman and Noah Baumbach ’ s Marriage Story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I Lost My Body , American Factory , and The Two Popes .
But it only took home two Oscars : one for documentary American Factory , and one for Laura Dern in Marriage Story , who was considered a lock to win the Supporting Actress category from the start of awards season .
The Irishman was shut out ( even though Parasite director Bong Joon-ho gave a lengthy shoutout to Scorsese in his Best Director speech , resulting in a standing ovation for Scorsese ) .
There are probably a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oscars hurdle this year , despite its massive spending .
One was simply the unusually good slate of nominated films it competed against in many categories .
The other is the likelihood of lingering anti-Netflix bias from Academy members who see Netflix ’ s attempts to disrupt the filmmaking industry as harmful to the artform and the movie business .
Still , Netflix seems bent on winning big awards in the future , including the elusive Best Picture win — and we ’ ll be hearing from it in future awards seasons .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocating for representation and diversity without making real change Without a host , the Oscars opened with Steve Martin and Chris Rock taking the reins and delivering an opening monologue of sorts .
While most of the jokes revolved around Martin ’ s age and him not knowing any of the 2020 Oscar nominees , the duo did roast the Academy for not nominating any women directors and the lack of nonwhite actors recognized in the acting categories .
Later in the evening , the trio of Brie Larson , Gal Gadot , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Best Original Score but preceded it with a nice speech about how important it is to recognize the strong women in our lives and in our world .
“ We just want to stand here together and say all women are superheroes , ” Weaver said — a nod to how she , Larson , and Gadot have all played superheroes and action heroes onscreen .
The Oscars also nodded toward inclusivity by bringing out international actresses who voiced Elsa in international translations of Frozen 2 to sing “ Into the Unknown ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the Academy did recognize its blind spots in representation , and while the night was full of positive gestures , these moments of cognizance won ’ t really mean much if the Oscars don ’ t improve so that these jokes and moments of ribbing itself don ’ t have to exist .
—AAS Loser : Cats , and its once-vibrant hopes and dreams for cinematic respect It ’ s strange to remember now , long after we all made our jokes about how Cats is a hallucinatory fever dream and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and how there ’ s a scene in Cats where Rebel Wilson unzips her cat suit to reveal a smaller cat suit underneath and then goes on to dance with monstrous human/cockroach creatures ( that last one ’ s not a joke , it ’ s just a summary of a scene in Cats ) — but Cats and its cast of stars did once have Oscars hopes .
It had a For Your Consideration page on Universal ’ s website and everything .
Things did not quite work out for Cats as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the film ’ s only moment of import at the 2020 Oscars came when a shame-faced Rebel Wilson and James Corden took the stage in full cat regalia to offer a cautionary tale on the importance of good visual effects .
Probably the poor CGI artists behind Cats did not appreciate that one .
But it ’ s a toss-up as to whether Guillaume Rocheron , Greg Butler , and Dominic Tuohy — who won the Visual Effects Oscar for 1917 — felt it stepped on their moment .
What do you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Picture nominees were dominated by giant corporations .
Netflix released The Irishman and Marriage Story .
Disney released Jojo Rabbit and Ford v Ferrari through its various subsidiaries .
( Jojo Rabbit was released via Searchlight Pictures , a boutique label with a substantial degree of autonomy but still one owned by Disney . )
Little Women and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood came from Sony .
1917 came from Universal .
Joker came from Warner Bros .
So eight of the nine Best Picture contenders were distributed by either one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upstart named Netflix .
Which is to say : After much of the 2010s ’ Oscar narrative was dominated by smaller distributors , the 2020 Oscars seemed like a return to the days of big studios dominating everything .
But then the smallest distributor in the race — Neon ( which is affiliated with the Alamo Drafthouse theater chain ) — won the biggest prize of all with Parasite , which also picked up three additional awards to win four in total , the most for any movie of the night .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a future where it ’ s , say , Netflix vs. Disney vs. Universal vs. Warner Bros. ( an incredibly likely scenario within the next few years ) , that future didn ’ t arrive in 2020 .
What ’ s more , Neon managed to pull off a campaign where Parasite stood as the underdog candidate everyone generally liked all season long .
Even if it wasn ’ t any given voter ’ s favorite movie of the year , it frequently landed in their top three — a powerful position to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where marginal contenders fall by the wayside with every new count .
Whatever the strategy , Neon figured out a way to make an unlikely South Korean thriller about class conflict the Best Picture winner in a year when it felt like a giant corporation would waltz to the top prize without much trouble .
Count one up for the underdog .
—Emily VanDerWerff Winner : Maya Rudolph and Kristen Wiig ’ s audition tape ( plus all our GIF libraries ) As we ’ ll get into below , this hostless Oscars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But Maya Rudolph and Kristen Wiig , who presented the awards for Production Design and Costume design , offered us all the personality and direction this listless ceremony needed for just a few precious minutes .
“ There are a lot of directors here tonight , ” Wiig began with a knowing smirk , and with that in mind , she and Rudolph demonstrated to the rest of us that they were weren ’ t just onstage to present .
They were there to audition .
Wiig and Rudolph could do it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could yell in anger !
They could sing !
And in showing off that last accomplishment , they gave us perhaps the night ’ s greatest gift of all : a truly immortal reaction GIF in Billie Eilish ’ s utter befuddlement at what was happening : Looking forward to using this one for years to come .
Thanks , Maya and Kristen — and , of course , Billie .
—CG By many indications , 1917 — Sam Mendes ’ s World War I drama seemingly shot in two separate long takes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the evening .
It had won the Golden Globe for Drama , as well as the top prizes from the Producers Guild and Directors Guild .
Normally , those three prizes together indicate a Best Picture win to come , especially with a major box office hit , as 1917 has turned out to be .
But not this year .
Instead , 1917 won three Oscars , but all for technical categories — Sound Mixing , Cinematography , and Visual Effects .
It ’ s hard to say precisely why 1917 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow Parasite the win .
It never endured , for example , a major backlash beyond a vague sense that its central idea was a little gimmicky .
( Best Picture winners have overcome far worse .
Just look at 2019 winner Green Book . )
What probably took it down in the end was a vague sense that it spoke to the distant past — not just because it talked about World War I , but because it felt like a throwback to All Quiet on the Western Front , literally the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a terrific movie ) .
Parasite , if nothing else , is about the right now , about a world where capitalism and income inequality seem to have choked out anything good in this life .
And that was enough to push it to the win .
—EV Eminem won the 2003 Oscar for Best Song for his hit “ Lose Yourself , ” from 8 Mile .
But either because he was taking a professional hiatus that year ( he also skipped the 2003 Grammys ) or because the Oscars were “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ song and slipping in profanity , Eminem didn ’ t attend .
And thus he never got to perform .
On Sunday night , he finally got his Oscar moment — 17 years after his win — with a solid albeit bizarrely presented performance that followed a stilted montage of Oscar-winning songs throughout Hollywood history .
The audience in the Dolby Theatre was a hilarious mix of baffled and hyped — reaction GIFs abound — but Eminem walked away with a standing ovation , looking stunned .
Better never let it go , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hostless Oscars and their many ( many , many , many ) presenters The buildup to the 2020 Oscars involved speculation about the awards ’ decision to go hostless for the second year in a row .
Last year ’ s ceremony , which pressed on without a host after original choice Kevin Hart stepped down , went off without a hitch .
But it remained unclear whether this year ’ s ceremony would be the start of a new normal .
How much could a host really add , you might ask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At this year ’ s ceremony , the production decided to swap out one host for a seemingly endless , time-consuming litany of presenters — about half of whom were just there to present ... other presenters .
One of the presenters even called it out .
“ Time is of the essence , which is why I ’ m here to introduce myself before introducing someone else who will in turn introduce someone else , ” quipped 1917 star George McKay , just as the show started to exceed its scheduled three-hour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 30 minutes long ) .
Presumably , this pageantry was at least partly about showcasing industry diversity and inclusion , in a year where — despite Parasite ’ s history-making four wins — the nominees list didn ’ t really reflect much diversity or inclusion .
But the actual effect was a strange , bloated , disjointed , unfocused parade of people introducing each other for three and a half hours straight .
Didn ’ t Cats get panned for exactly the same reason ?
—AR At the 10 Oscar ceremonies honoring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 2011 to 2020 — only one American director won the Best Director prize : Damien Chazelle for La La Land in 2017 .
The other nine directing awards of the decade have gone to a British director ( Tom Hooper for The King ’ s Speech ) , a French director ( Michel Hazanavicius for The Artist ) , a Taiwanese director ( Ang Lee for The Life of Pi ) , three Mexican directors ( Alfonso Cuarón for Gravity and Roma ; Alejandro G. Iñárritu for Birdman and The Revenant ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Water ) , and now a Korean director ( Bong Joon-ho for Parasite ) .
It ’ s the first decade in which that ’ s ever happened , and an indication of just how dominant directors from all over the globe have become in 21st-century cinema .
Who knows what might happen in the 2020s ?
—EV Sure , it lost 10 Oscars ( Martin Scorsese ’ s second film to have this dubious distinction after 2003 ’ s Gangs of New York accomplished the same ) .
But what really stings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the nine Best Picture nominees to not win a single Oscar .
Really , Academy ?
You couldn ’ t have tossed it a random Production Design win or something ?
Oh , well .
Marty will probably sleep just fine having directed several cinematic masterpieces .
He still might have liked another Oscar , though .
—EV

The 2020 Oscars ended on a triumphant note, with Parasite becoming the first non-English-language film to take home the trophy for Best Picture. The history-making moment felt as though the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences might be moving forward from its often hidebound traditions, albeit incredibly fitfully. (This was still a year when diversity was discussed more than it was actually displayed, lest we forget.)
But Parasite’s unprecedented win also capped off a show that was weird and unfocused far too often, with a long run time that only added to the aggravation. Yes, many of the winners were cool, and Parasite’s Best Picture win retroactively gave the entire evening an air of historic importance. But in the moment, it was dull, dull, dull to watch.
Related Here are all the 2020 Oscar winners
So who were the winners of this year’s ceremony, beyond Parasite? And who were the losers — beyond Netflix, which tossed tons of money after what ended up being two Oscar wins? Well, the Vox culture team has analyzed the awards and come away with these six winners and five losers from the 92nd Academy Awards, starting with the biggest winner of them all ...
Winner: Parasite
Parasite went into the night with six nominations and ended up winning four major awards: Best Original Screenplay, Best Director, International Feature Film, and the biggest award of the night, Best Picture. It also made history, becoming the first South Korean film to win the Best International Feature Film category (which was previously known as Best Foreign Language Film) and the first non-English-language film to win Best Picture. Topping off the night was seeing Parasite’s humble and very gracious director and co-writer Bong Joon-ho thank his cast, his supporters, and his fellow nominees at every opportunity. —Alex Abad-Santos
Loser: Netflix
Netflix, by some estimates, spent well over $100 million on its 2020 Oscar campaigns. Though the streamer refuted that number, it was clear that the company — which joined the Motion Picture Association of America prior to the 2019 Oscars, solidifying its position as one of Hollywood’s biggest players — was pouring resources into its awards slate. Last year, the company proved it could be a heavy hitter at the awards, with Roma winning three of its 10 nominations.
But this year, Netflix wanted more, and released a hefty pool of possible awards contenders. Typically, studios will back a movie’s awards campaign to the tune of $5 million to $20 million. Industry insiders estimated that Netflix was spending at least $20 million apiece on its two biggest contenders: Martin Scorsese’s The Irishman and Noah Baumbach’s Marriage Story. Netflix also nabbed nominations for Klaus, I Lost My Body, American Factory, and The Two Popes.
Related How to win an Oscar
But it only took home two Oscars: one for the documentary American Factory, and one for Laura Dern in Marriage Story, who was considered a lock to win the Supporting Actress category from the start of awards season. The Irishman was shut out (even though Parasite director Bong Joon-ho gave a lengthy shoutout to Scorsese in his Best Director speech, resulting in a standing ovation for Scorsese).
There are probably a few reasons Netflix couldn’t overcome the Oscars hurdle this year, despite its massive spending. One was simply the unusually good slate of nominated films it competed against in many categories. The other is the likelihood of lingering anti-Netflix bias from Academy members who see Netflix’s attempts to disrupt the filmmaking industry as harmful to the art form and the movie business.
Still, Netflix seems bent on winning big awards in the future, including the elusive Best Picture win — and we’ll be hearing from it in future awards seasons. —Alissa Wilkinson
Winner: Jokes about Hollywood advocating for representation and diversity without making real change
Without a host, the Oscars opened with Steve Martin and Chris Rock taking the reins and delivering an opening monologue of sorts. While most of the jokes revolved around Martin’s age and him not knowing any of the 2020 Oscar nominees, the duo did roast the Academy for not nominating any women directors and the lack of nonwhite actors recognized in the acting categories.
Later in the evening, the trio of Brie Larson, Gal Gadot, and Sigourney Weaver presented the award for Best Original Score but preceded it with a nice speech about how important it is to recognize the strong women in our lives and in our world.
“We just want to stand here together and say all women are superheroes,” Weaver said — a nod to how she, Larson, and Gadot have all played superheroes and action heroes onscreen.
The Oscars also nodded toward inclusivity by bringing out international actresses who voiced Elsa in international translations of Frozen 2 to sing “Into the Unknown” in their respective languages. It felt like the Academy did recognize its blind spots in representation, and while the night was full of positive gestures, these moments of cognizance won’t really mean much if the Oscars don’t improve so that these jokes and moments of ribbing don’t have to exist. —AAS
Loser: Cats, and its once-vibrant hopes and dreams for cinematic respect
It’s strange to remember now, long after we’ve all made our jokes about how Cats is a hallucinatory fever dream and the most surreal immersive art experience ever made and how there’s a scene in Cats where Rebel Wilson unzips her cat suit to reveal a smaller cat suit underneath and then goes on to dance with monstrous human/cockroach creatures (that last one’s not a joke, it’s just a summary of a scene in Cats) — but Cats and its cast of stars did once have Oscars hopes. It had a For Your Consideration page on Universal’s website and everything.
Things did not quite work out for Cats as anyone involved might have hoped. Instead, the film’s only moment of import at the 2020 Oscars came when a shame-faced Rebel Wilson and James Corden took the stage in full cat regalia to offer a cautionary tale on the importance of good visual effects.
The honor of a lifetime pic.twitter.com/E0yfivoizb — Mallory Rubin (@MalloryRubin) February 10, 2020
Probably the poor CGI artists behind Cats did not appreciate that one. But it’s a toss-up as to whether Guillaume Rocheron, Greg Butler, and Dominic Tuohy — who won the Visual Effects Oscar for 1917 — felt it stepped on their moment. What do you think? —Constance Grady
Winner: The tiny distributor Neon
The 2020 Best Picture nominees were dominated by giant corporations. Netflix released The Irishman and Marriage Story. Disney released Jojo Rabbit and Ford v Ferrari through its various subsidiaries. (Jojo Rabbit was released via Searchlight Pictures, a boutique label with a substantial degree of autonomy but still one owned by Disney.) Little Women and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood came from Sony. 1917 came from Universal. Joker came from Warner Bros.
So eight of the nine Best Picture contenders were distributed by either one of the big six studios or a scrappy upstart named Netflix. Which is to say: After much of the 2010s’ Oscar narrative was dominated by smaller distributors, the 2020 Oscars seemed like a return to the days of big studios dominating everything.
But then the smallest distributor in the race — Neon (which is affiliated with the Alamo Drafthouse theater chain) — won the biggest prize of all with Parasite, which also picked up three additional awards to win four in total, the most for any movie of the night. To whatever degree the Oscars are headed for a future where it’s, say, Netflix versus Disney versus Universal versus Warner Bros. (an incredibly likely scenario within the next few years), that future didn’t arrive in 2020.
What’s more, Neon managed to pull off a campaign where Parasite stood as the underdog candidate everyone generally liked all season long. Even if it wasn’t any given voter’s favorite movie of the year, it frequently landed in their top three — a powerful position to hold in a preferential ballot race, where marginal contenders fall by the wayside with every new count.
Whatever the strategy, Neon figured out a way to make an unlikely South Korean thriller about class conflict the Best Picture winner in a year when it felt like a giant corporation would waltz to the top prize without much trouble. Count one up for the underdog. —Emily VanDerWerff
Winner: Maya Rudolph and Kristen Wiig’s audition tape (plus all our GIF libraries)
As we’ll get into below, this hostless Oscars struggled a bit to find its voice. But Maya Rudolph and Kristen Wiig, who presented the awards for Production Design and Costume design, offered us all the personality and direction this listless ceremony needed for a few precious minutes.
“There are a lot of directors here tonight,” Wiig began with a knowing smirk, and with that in mind, she and Rudolph demonstrated to the rest of us that they weren’t just onstage to present. They were there to audition.
Wiig and Rudolph could do it all! They could cry! They could yell in anger! They could sing! And in showing off that last accomplishment, they gave us perhaps the night’s greatest gift of all: a truly immortal reaction GIF in Billie Eilish’s utter befuddlement at what was happening:
Looking forward to using this one for years to come. Thanks, Maya and Kristen — and, of course, Billie. —CG
Loser: 1917
By many indications, 1917 — Sam Mendes’s World War I drama seemingly shot in two separate long takes — seemed like the prohibitive favorite going into the evening. It had won the Golden Globe for Drama, as well as the top prizes from the Producers Guild and Directors Guild.
Normally, those three prizes together indicate a Best Picture win to come, especially with a major box office hit, as 1917 has turned out to be. But not this year. Instead, 1917 won three Oscars, but all for technical categories — Sound Mixing, Cinematography, and Visual Effects.
It’s hard to say precisely why 1917 seemed to lose just enough steam to allow Parasite the win. It never endured, for example, a major backlash beyond a vague sense that its central idea was a little gimmicky. (Best Picture winners have overcome far worse. Just look at 2019 winner Green Book.)
What probably took it down in the end was a vague sense that it spoke to the distant past — not just because it talked about World War I, but because it felt like a throwback to All Quiet on the Western Front, literally the third Best Picture winner ever (and a terrific movie). Parasite, if nothing else, is about the right now, about a world where capitalism and income inequality seem to have choked out anything good in this life. And that was enough to push it to the win. —EV
Winner: Eminem, for a 17-year-old award
After 18 years of winning an Oscar.
Look who's back. ( not literally cause he didn't showed up in 03 )
Eminem freaking killed it
Standing ovation #eminem #Oscar2020 pic.twitter.com/9tujOGsfgp — Zeeshan Khalid (@pjzaks313) February 10, 2020
Eminem won the 2003 Oscar for Best Song for his hit “Lose Yourself,” from 8 Mile. But either because he was taking a professional hiatus that year (he also skipped the 2003 Grammys) or because the Oscars were “reportedly nervous” about him performing the song and slipping in profanity, Eminem didn’t attend. And thus, he never got to perform.
On Sunday night, he finally got his Oscar moment — 17 years after his win — with a solid albeit bizarrely presented performance that followed a stilted montage of Oscar-winning songs throughout Hollywood history. The audience in the Dolby Theatre was a hilarious mix of baffled and hyped — reaction GIFs abound — but Eminem walked away with a standing ovation, looking stunned. Better never let it go, Marshall. —Aja Romano
Loser: The hostless Oscars and their many (many, many, many) presenters
The buildup to the 2020 Oscars involved speculation about the awards’ decision to go hostless for the second year in a row. Last year’s ceremony, which pressed on without a host after original choice Kevin Hart stepped down, went off without a hitch. But it remained unclear whether this year’s ceremony would be the start of a new normal.
How much could a host really add, you might ask? Plenty, it turns out. At this year’s ceremony, the production decided to swap out one host for a seemingly endless, time-consuming litany of presenters — about half of whom were just there to present ... other presenters.
One of the presenters even called it out. “Time is of the essence, which is why I’m here to introduce myself before introducing someone else who will in turn introduce someone else,” quipped 1917 star George McKay, just as the show started to exceed its scheduled three-hour run time (the awards ultimately ran about 30 minutes long).
Presumably, this pageantry was at least partly about showcasing industry diversity and inclusion, in a year where — despite Parasite’s history-making four wins — the nominees list didn’t really reflect much diversity or inclusion. But the actual effect was a strange, bloated, disjointed, unfocused parade of people introducing each other for three and a half hours straight. Didn’t Cats get panned for exactly the same reason? —AR
Winner: Non-American directors
At the 10 Oscar ceremonies honoring movies made in the 2010s — those from 2011 to 2020 — only one American director won the Best Director prize: Damien Chazelle for La La Land in 2017. The other nine directing awards of the decade have gone to a British director (Tom Hooper for The King’s Speech), a French director (Michel Hazanavicius for The Artist), a Taiwanese director (Ang Lee for The Life of Pi), three Mexican directors (Alfonso Cuarón for Gravity and Roma; Alejandro G. Iñárritu for Birdman and The Revenant; Guillermo del Toro for The Shape of Water), and now a Korean director (Bong Joon-ho for Parasite).
It’s the first decade in which that’s ever happened, and an indication of just how dominant directors from all over the globe have become in 21st-century cinema. Who knows what might happen in the 2020s? —EV
Loser: The Irishman
Sure, it lost 10 Oscars (Martin Scorsese’s second film to have this dubious distinction after 2003’s Gangs of New York accomplished the same). But what really stings is that The Irishman was the only one of the nine Best Picture nominees not to win a single Oscar. Really, Academy? You couldn’t have tossed it a random Production Design win or something? Oh, well. Marty will probably sleep just fine having directed several cinematic masterpieces. He still might have liked another Oscar, though. —EV