Public disputes

"Roman Polanski secured a Best Director nomination. Character had no bearing on art, much less the Oscars' selection process."

""The Pianist" received seven nominations. The Oscar judges showed clear favoritism. What would the final result be?"

"The showdown between Nicole Kidman and Renée Zellweger for Best Actress. Who would take home the award?"

"Chicago was making a grand appearance, with boundless glory."

"Was Hollywood entering the Harvey Weinstein era? Consistently receiving Best Picture nominations—was it about vision or something else?"

"Always controversial, "The Hours" caused a stir. To ensure Nicole Kidman's competitive advantage, they even submitted Meryl Streep for Best Supporting Actress?"

...

Throughout the years, the Oscar nomination lists always dominated entertainment headlines, and this year was no exception. Just one day after the nomination banquet, all the related newspaper articles had been released.

However, this year, there was a slight difference. Instead of focusing on the major awards like Best Picture, Best Actor, or Best Actress, people's attention undoubtedly fell on the controversial film "The Pianist".

The director's misdeeds had undoubtedly made them uncomfortable, and what's more infuriating was that "The Pianist" had a good chance of winning?

"Could it really win the big prize?" Every gossip section was concerned about this question because such a topic was incredibly popular for discussion.

As various newspapers made predictions about the Oscars' winners this year, betting companies also released their odds. Following the outbreak of the scandal, Roman Polanski's odds for winning actually increased slightly to 1:2.5. This showed that they were optimistic about the tainted director's chances of winning, as the Academy judges seemed unreasonably supportive.

As for the Best Director category, another top contender for the award was Martin Scorsese for "Gangs of New York" with odds of 1:3, which was 0.5 points higher than Roman Polanski's odds... Besides, the other three betting companies saw the other nominees as long shots with odds ranging from 1:5 to 1:10. From this, it was evident how the industry professionals viewed the judging of this award.

Traditionally, Harvey Weinstein's Miramax was always the frontrunner for Best Picture, which aligned with their goal of maximizing profits. This was something everyone in the industry knew. The confidence of the betting companies in their odds also reflected their vast knowledge and insight.

As for "3 Idiots", the odds for Best Foreign Language Film were even more astounding at 1:1.5. These odds... It was almost as if they were backed by a powerful PR team, even more confident than the people from CAA.

However, it also signified that they genuinely believed the film had a good chance of going all the way, as "3 Idiots" was a typical work with a strong regional atmosphere, which already had an advantage in the Best Foreign Language Film category. Moreover, both CAA and Paramount Pictures supported this film.

For an outsider or half an insider, was there even a choice? Especially for the academicians who stubbornly upheld the principles of their circle, they preferred to highlight local characteristics and practiced preferential treatment.

Take, for example, the well-known "Jewish" theorem.

Actors with Jewish heritage always seemed to receive more opportunities at the Oscars than others, and they often won more awards.

Many rumors claimed that half of Hollywood was controlled by Jewish influence, and this was not without basis.

They were more willing to help their own, and while it may have seemed unfair to many, it was the means by which Jewish people survived and thrived in Hollywood, in America, or anywhere else.

Although disagreements may have arisen, Jewish solidarity was well-known, especially in the entertainment industry where networking determined resource allocation, making this even more pronounced.

Helping each other had become a natural instinct for them. For example, Harvey Weinstein's influence at the Oscars was not just due to his abilities; his bloodline and ethnicity played an exceptionally crucial role during this time.

Likewise, Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson were also examples of smooth-sailing and almost charmed acting careers, which further illustrated this point.

As for why they both didn't quite look like Jewish descent, it was because the Jewish identity is determined through the maternal line, and coincidentally, their mothers were Jewish while their fathers were not.

This phenomenon can be traced back to iconic actresses like Marilyn Monroe, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kate Hudson, and many others who stood out in their respective eras through this characteristic.

Undeniably, their talent and beauty played a significant role, but the key factor was still the continuous support of influential figures.

This cultural identity and sense of closeness were obvious and even seemed transparent; it wasn't considered cheating or anything of the sort—everything was laid out in plain sight.

If it weren't for the underperforming Jewish contingent this year, Nicole Kidman would probably have been a supporting actress as in previous years, witnessing the awards being handed to those who were simply not as good as her.

The title of the most mediocre Oscar winner for Best Actress was won by Gwyneth Paltrow, and yes, she was Jewish.

Just like how China has a strong sense of regionalism, in the ancient times of the officialdom, factions held significant political power, people in large groups have always been willing to band together for survival.

"There are no factions within the party; monarchs should have ideological ambitions; there are no cliques within the party, all kinds of peculiarities..." These words from great men are truly words of wisdom.

In countries like the United States, which is an immigrant nation, local factions did not develop; instead, it was replaced by ethnic identity.

Various ethnic groups naturally gather to form an interconnected community of shared interests, grasping as many resources as possible to support the development of such communities in society. Among all ethnic groups, or rather, in America, Jews and African Americans are the most united. This is mainly because they are relatively disadvantaged in the overall environment.

I won't delve into African Americans as they have only recently awakened to their racial consciousness and have begun to demonstrate their strength. However, their ethnicity does suggest that it would be difficult for them to achieve great success in the larger context, so they have to stick together. As for Jews, they have experienced such events in modern times—being excluded, discriminated against, and disliked—thus, they have to stick together even more. Moreover, their ethnic culture emphasizes this point. In such a culture of unity, they gradually gained influence and even established a dominant position in Hollywood.

Of course, this does not mean that any random Jewish person entering Hollywood can achieve fame, wealth, and security. Instead, this group of people may have access to opportunities that others would find it hard to obtain, all thanks to their lineage.

Take the Oscars, for example. If you are lucky enough to receive a nomination based on your talent, you can appeal to the emotions of the Jewish judges who subconsciously maintain the interests of their ethnic group. Harvey Weinstein achieved his influence using this trick as well.

At first glance, this might sound unbelievable, and outsiders might find it hard to believe that the Oscars are so glittering. How can it be like this?

But in the eyes of those academician judges, that's exactly how it is. Just like those major stars, outsiders might see them as "mysterious and impressive", just like the entertainment industry. People who have little understanding might be misled, and only those who truly enter it will discover how much corruption and explicitly-priced transactions exist within the industry.

This is not surprising because the acting profession is not associated with education or knowledge, nor does it involve refinement or moral standards.

In fact, those who are too principled and have high moral standards might find it difficult to make a breakthrough.

The lotus flower can grow from the mud without being stained, but it's a different story for ordinary people without connections—why would anyone take you under their wing?

However, the Oscar judges were not some professionally trained, impartial evaluation machines sponsored by the association. They were human beings, individuals, each with their own social relationships and personal biases. This meant that removing their subjective thoughts and voting objectively according to professional standards was a challenging task.

Let's not talk about racial biases; there were also gender biases, appearance biases, subject matter biases, value biases... All sorts of subjective prejudices were present among the over a thousand members.

Although the Academy's voting rules were publicly disclosed, prohibiting practices like bloc voting or private discussions, has there been any instance where someone didn't inquire about voting or engage in such discussions in private?

The Oscars' tricks were simply countless, and a significant portion of the judges were long-standing veterans from the '70s or even earlier.

Do you think they would become indifferent to worldly affairs and suddenly become truly devoted to the art of film once they grew old? It's just not possible, and even if it were, how many people would truly have such an enlightenment?

The voting power rested in their hands, merely serving as an entry ticket to seek personal gains. As for whom they voted for, that was inconsequential.

Since the judges themselves didn't respect the so-called Oscars, those within the industry who sought their own interests had even less reason to uphold the principles of fair competition.

However, they couldn't be too blatant about it. Since entering the '80s and the era of stardom, the Oscars' pretenses improved significantly, making it look like everything was legitimate.

"3 Idiots" was progressing without deviation in this kind of environment, marching towards the Oscars as per CAA's plan.

Leman also became busy, under the guidance of Kevin Huvane, calling and communicating with judges who could be swayed and had influence over film awards, promising them benefits.

This was the simplest means of persuasion, yet it was the most effective.

Perhaps other competitors were doing the same, and in the end, it all came down to who had the better skills.

As for the film itself, it may have already been forgotten by people...