elmundo.es
"Wicked"'s Surprise Best Picture Win Upends Early Oscar Race
The National Board of Review's unexpected choice of Jon M. Chu's "Wicked" as Best Picture, along with several acting awards, shakes up the early Oscar race, contrasting with wins at Cannes and Venice.
- What is the significance of the National Board of Review's selection of "Wicked" as Best Picture?
- "Wicked", Jon M. Chu's adaptation of the musical, has been named Best Picture by the National Board of Review, also awarding Chu Best Director and recognizing Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande. This early win significantly boosts "Wicked"'s Oscar chances, challenging other frontrunners like those recognized at Cannes and Venice.
- How do the National Board of Review awards compare to other early season accolades, and what factors might explain the discrepancies?
- The National Board of Review's choice of "Wicked" as Best Picture contrasts with initial awards season momentum favoring films like "Anora" and "Emilia Pérez" (Cannes) and "Cónclave" and "The Brutalist" (Venice). This unexpected win highlights "Wicked"'s box office success as a factor in awards consideration.
- What are the potential long-term implications of "Wicked"'s early win for the overall awards season narrative and the recognition of independent cinema?
- "Wicked's" win may shift the trajectory of the awards race, potentially eclipsing independent darlings like "A Different Man" and "Nickel Boys." The impact of this early win remains uncertain, with subsequent awards like the BAFTAs, Golden Globes, and Oscars yet to be decided.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The narrative frames the award season as a competition, emphasizing the 'winners' and 'favorites' from early award ceremonies. This could lead readers to focus on the early frontrunners and undervalue films that might gain momentum later in the season. The repeated use of phrases like "first favorites" and "power" reinforces this competitive framing.
Language Bias
The text uses language that could be considered somewhat subjective, such as 'improbable candidate' and 'giving the note' in the context of describing box office successes. These phrases express opinions rather than neutral observations. The term 'power' when referring to Wicked's success is slightly loaded. More neutral alternatives could be used to maintain objectivity.
Bias by Omission
The text focuses primarily on award wins and nominations, potentially omitting films or perspectives that didn't receive early recognition. There is no mention of specific films that might be critically acclaimed but not yet recognized by award bodies. This omission could skew the reader's perception of the overall landscape of the year in film.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic view of the award season, focusing on a few key contenders and suggesting a clear path to the Oscars. It doesn't fully acknowledge the unpredictable nature of awards and the possibility of unexpected winners.
Gender Bias
The article mentions several prominent female actors (Nicole Kidman, Ariana Grande, Cynthia Erivo, Demi Moore) alongside male actors, but doesn't explicitly analyze gender representation within the films or award ceremonies themselves. Further investigation would be needed to determine any potential gender bias in the selection of films or award winners.