Ryan Gosling and America Ferrera react to Greta Gerwig and Margot Robbie’s Oscar snubs
"There is no Ken without Barbie," says Ryan Gosling
Aux News Ryan Gosling
The 24 hours after the Oscar nominations are announced has historically been the period when we all let out our frustrations over the terrible snubs of the year, and Barbie’s Ryan Gosling and America Ferrera are joining in the festivities this year after the Motion Picture Academy declined to nominate director Greta Gerwig and star Margot Robbie—and yet the film received a Best Picture nomination, so maybe someone can explain how it did that without its director or star.
Ferrera, who is nominated for Best Supporting Actress, was the first to offer her reaction to the nomination/lack of nomination, saying (via Variety) she was so stunned by her own nod that she was sure she had made it up until her phone “started blowing up” and she realized it was real. After talking to her publicist and then her husband, Ferrera got a FaceTime call from the other members of the Sisterhood Of Traveling Pants, who she says are “amazing” and “such a gift” in her life.
But as for Gerwig and Robbie, Ferrera said she was “incredibly disappointed” that they weren’t nominated with her, saying “Greta has done just about everything that a director could do to deserve [a nomination]” and that “what Margot achieved as an actress is truly unbelievable.” She says Robbie is good at making everything look easy, theorizing that “perhaps people got fooled” into thinking she wasn’t giving the “amazing performance” that she gave.
Gosling, who is up for Best Supporting Actor, said in a statement that “there is no Ken without Barbie, and there is not Barbie movie without Greta Gerwig and Margot Robbie, the two people most responsible for this history-making, globally-celebrated film.” He says it would “be an understatement” to say he’s disappointed that they didn’t get nominated, and that “no recognition would be possible for anyone on the film without their talent, grit, and genius.” He ended his statement by adding that he is still “so happy for America Ferrera and the other incredible artists who contributed their talents to making this such a groundbreaking film.”
90 Comments
Nominating Ken but not Barbie is stupid and fits perfectly with the theme of the movie.
Just like when they gave an Oscar to the Nazi in Inglourious Basterds and didn’t recognize any of the Jewish soldiers.
You uh… know the people Robbie got snubbed for are also women, right?
This absolutely fucking sent me
Some gentlemen here seem fine with it. Interesting. And sad.
Call me a misogynist (as I’m sure you will), but…They got nominated for different categories.This means Ken’s 1B leading role in the Supporting Role gives him a leg up.Also, in the female equivalent category… Barbie got a nomination.And finally, of the 5 nominees… which do you believe *objectively* was worse than Robbie?
Except that this isn’t the Morality Awards. This is about honoring the best performances this year. Gosling’s was one of them. Robbie’s wasn’t. Ditto for Gerwig’s directing.Now, is it a problem that the most standout performance in Barbie is by a man? Yes! A problem with the movie.
No it doesn’t. It doesn’t fit the theme at all. Gosling was going up against all the other men in the SUPPORTING actor category and Robbie against all the other women in the LEAD actress role.Its not like it was Gosling taking Robbie’s spot in the nominations.JFC
I feel like the movie is kind of an ironic victim of its own success, though, in that Gosling really does steal the show.
Agreed, Gosling/Ken definitely has the flashier role. Like America Ferrera was saying, Robbie’s performance is much more understated. When I was watching the movie, I was very tickled by Ken, but did think it was curious how central he was. Also his story felt more complete, while Barbie’s just kinda peters out into the “meeting her maker” bit and gynecologist appointment (thought that was a great joke to end on though).
That is not how the process works at all. Her performance in Barbie was not even her best performance of the year.
what, Asteroid City? I don’t think so
They’re not in the same category and facing different competition, so whether Robbie was nominated for Barbie has no relation to whether Gosling should be nominated for Ken.
…the Motion Picture Academy declined to nominate director Greta Gerwig and star Margot Robbie—and yet the film received a Best Picture nomination, so maybe someone can explain how it did that without its director or star.It’s not that hard. 2023 was a fucking good year for movies. There are only five spots each for Best Director and Best Actress. There are close to 9,500 voting members of the Academy, and of those who bothered to cast votes, a majority found that five other actors were more deserving that Robbie (not that hard to believe, to be honest) and that five other directors were more deserving than Gerwig (a harder sell, in my book). Every time people lose their minds over “snubs”, they seem to forget that it’s a zero-sum game: you’re not adding a nomination, you’re replacing one with another. I haven’t seen Nyad, but I can see why the Academy would want to give Annette Bening a late crack at finally wining an Oscar after five noms and no sale. I’ve seen the other four films from which Best Actress noms were drawn, and I agree that the other four actresses absolutely did just as good if not better jobs as Robbie in their performances. Robbie wasn’t robbed; there are just at least four if not five better performances that were out there to choose from. Robbie might have clocking in at #6 in the voting for all we know. Them’s the breaks.As for Gerwig, I absolutely would agree that she should have been nominated—instead of Scorsese. I think she did more inventive things with Barbie than he did with KOTFM, which was a paint-by-numbers adaptation that has rightly received criticism for the choices it makes (and the book was better). The other four nominees for Best Director absolutely deserve to be nominated.Put it this way, Barbie stans: You should be happy there are 10 slots for Best Picture, otherwise you might be reeling even more.
Exactly. It’s not as if Greta Gerwig received zero votes for Best Director; we’ll never know, but I’d be willing to bet she received quite a lot.
It’s just that five other directors received more.
The reasons why come down to subjective interpretations of art and are impossible to quantify.
It’s just that five other directors received more.The reasons why come down to subjective interpretations of art and are impossible to quantify.It may be hard to quantify but it’s easy to interpret. Gerwig is not yet given her due respect as a director, while Scorsese has such gravitas in the industry that nearly anything he directs is going to receive a nomination, especially a work as massive as KOTFM. I expect that sometime in the future the Academy will (grudgingly) admit that Gerwig is on a par with established old men that form the pantheon of modern directors and hand her an award. Hopefully it will be for some great piece of work, but that’s not guaranteed.
There are only five spots each for Best Director and Best Actress.
But there are ten for Best Picture. I’ve thought for years that the other major categories should also be expanded. You’re correct that giving Robbie or Gerwig a nomination would mean someone else doesn’t get one. But there’s no reason for the Academy to not expand the other major categories as they did for Best Picture. It’s long overdue. I think that maybe there shouldn’t be any limits on how many nominees there are in any category. If something get over X votes, then it’s nominated.
I can see why the Academy would want to give Annette Bening a late crack at finally wining an Oscar after five noms and no sale.
Acting Oscars should not be given out for past performances. That’s what the Lifetime Achievement Oscar is for. People should win for the performance they’re nominated for.
I haven’t seen Nyad either so I haven’t seen Benning’s performance, and I’m not saying that Benning doesn’t deserve to win for her performance in Nyad. It’s just that the attitude that “they’ve been nominated several times & never won, so they should win now” never sat right with me.
Acting Oscars should not be given out for past performances. That’s what the Lifetime Achievement Oscar is for. People should win for the performance they’re nominated for.I agree, but good luck concocting a plausible mechanism for enforcing this.
Acting Oscars should not be given out for past performances. That’s what the Lifetime Achievement Oscar is for. People should win for the performance they’re nominated for.Case in point: 1970 Best Actor Oscar awarded to John Wayne in True Grit over Dustin Hoffman in Midnight Cowboy. That was the point when I realized that the awards were not for specific performances.
Look at Titanic winning best picture. I mean that award was basically because it made a huge haul. The visuals were good but it was basically Lady And The Tramp on a boat. It wasn’t particularly a great story. And god knows Kate Winslet has had way better performances than that movie.
Sure, the Academy does tend to reward financial success. That’s why it’s called show business. I do think that Titanic was better than Lady and the Tramp on a boat. Its genius was splicing an action movie into the middle of a standard tragic love story, something that’s been tried since with much less success. And the other nominees that year, although good, weren’t head and shoulders above Titanic, and Titanic was such a cultural phenomenon that it would have been hard to dismiss it.
My take on Titanic is that it’s a perfectly serviceable romance story (and much of that is thanks to Billy Zane) until they hit the iceberg, at which point it becomes a grade-A disaster flick.
Look at Titanic winning best picture. I mean that award was basically because it made a huge haul. The visuals were good but it was basically Lady And The Tramp on a boat. It wasn’t particularly a great story. And god knows Kate Winslet has had way better performances than that movie.
I agree that Best Director should expand to match the number of Best Picture nominees, but it occurred to me in thinking about it during my drive this morning that Best Actor actually does have 10 nominees; it’s just been allocated to half men and half women (same for Best Supporting). Whether that division should persist is another conversation altogether, of course.
I’m saying that both Best Male Actor and Best Female Actor should also be expanded to ten.
I get that. I actually think I like your Hall of Fame-style ballot idea better – if someone appears on (X%) of the ballots, they are a nominee, and the category is as big as it turns out to be, varying by year.
They should do away with the nominations entirely. Every one gets a trophy. No millionaire gets excluded from the millionaire appreciation society.
We watched Nyad a few weeks ago and I thought it was interesting but nothing special about the movie or the performances. If it had been released six months ago I don’t think I would have guessed it would be in the conversation during award season.
I haven’t seen Nyad, but I can see why the Academy would want to give Annette Bening a late crack at finally wining an Oscar after five noms and no sale.*Glenn Close has entered the chat.*
Gerwig’s snub stings because so few female directors are ever nominated. I would actually prefer it not to be nominated as Best Picture than to have the academy basically acknowledge that this film was great and important but then act like it wasn’t Gerwig’s achievement. I suppose the rationale is that she will probably win the adapted screenplay category, but that’s what’s so maddening about the Oscars. As you say, Benning’s nom feels like a “we owe you one.” The way members vote is absurd and so subjective.
Looking at it from a purely gender-neutral, heads-up perspective, I feel she was indeed snubbed because her film was as purely creative and unique as anything we saw this year. I expect the portion of people who rolled their eyes when they heard someone was making a Barbie movie was 90%+, but that anyone who knows who Gerwig is also said to themselves upon learning of her involvement that hey, this might just be interesting. She threaded an incredibly thin needle putting that movie together.
Thank you for calling out that sentence. There are more Picture noms than Director noms. This necessarily happens every single year. There are arguments to be made for Gerwig, but ignoring the most basic of math isn’t one of them.
Carey Mulligan makes Oscar porn and overacted her way through an extremely bland movie. Margot shoulda had that spot.
Jeez, it’s a movie about Barbie.
Check your expectations.
You know it’s not really about Barbie though, right? RIGHT?
There are arguably moments when Barbie doesn’t really know itself what it’s about. But expecting the Academy to give all the awards to a movie with heavy fantasy elements about a toy? Just going by history you shouldn’t expect that.
“Toy Story, … was instantly hailed as a masterpiece. The movie received three nominations, plus a special achievement award for director John Lasseter.”What was that about toys and fantasies? I’m eager for your explanation as to how the film didn’t know what it was about.
I did say “usually” to you before. Your one example pales in comparison to the fact that live-action fantasy/sci-fi/genre films don’t tend to get awards for directors or lead actors.
I also said “arguably moments”, so not the whole film. There were a few times in Barbie where the messages got a bit muddled. You’d have to talk to my partner more about that because it offended her way more than me. But that’s her opinion. I thought Barbie was fine, just not my thing, and evidently not the Academy’s either.
I’d welcome your partner’s explication.
I’ll see if she’s got some time and cares enough to.
My partner would actually like to know what you thought the movie was about, because they can’t make heads or tails of what it’s supposed to be about.
FWIW Toy Story was nominated for Best Original Screenplay, Score and Original Song, so it’s not like that one exactly swept the ‘big’ awards either. TBH your overall point — that Barbie, for all it’s virtues, is not exactly the kind of movie that the Academy tends to shower with love — is a pretty valid one.Also, I’ve lost the Amy Santiago Guilty Burger Chipmunk Icon?! What the actual fuck, Kinja.
Again, the movie is not about a toy any more than Toy Story was about toys. Fellowship of the Rings with super heavy fantasy elements = Best Picture nom.
I believe Fellowship of Ring was the official title, and don’t forget the noms (and win) for the sequels, Towers Two and King Returns!
Oh wow, you were actually serious? I’m not the one awarding Oscars. There are members of the Academy that will see a movie like Barbie and write it off because it’s a fantasy movie. There are morals, themes and messages in most movies, and they’re not mutually exclusive from who the characters are. The Academy usually will prefer to award more so-called “serious” films, dealing with real human stories in a realistic way.
So again, your one example pales in comparison to the fact that live-action fantasy/sci-fi/genre films don’t tend to get awards for directors or lead actors.
The story of ‘Barbie’ is in fact the story … of America.
Even a plastic guy can win.
Margot Robbie>Emma Stone.It couldn’t be that hard to stomp around woodenly, behaving like a brat and doing lots of (I assume, simulated) sex. The performance was surprisingly lacking in depth, in spite of the movie’s claim to be a feminist film. But no one got to see Barbie bone, so….
You must really hate disabled people.
jesus christ. Barbie was not nearly as good as you think it was.And I say that as someone who really enjoyed it.Out of curiosity… how many of the nominated actors, directors and films did you see?I always marvel at how someone can KNOW that their fav film was snubbed, without having seen all the others. I wish I had that level of confidence.
Oh fuck you. You don’t get to tell someone their opinion on a movie is wrong, ya fucking nerd.
It wasn’t my favorite film. Gladstone delivered the best performance, imo. I’m simply comparing one atress to another as an example. I’m not interested in writing a long-form comparison of all the actresses on a for-click-site, since comparing two subjects is one of the most common forms of writing.And I never cease to marvel at the assumptions commenters make about other commenters. Sorry if you felt personally attacked by my remarks.
In fairness, Barbie doesn’t have the equipment until the very last scene in the movie.
That is fair. It’s also true that delayed desire can keep an audience mighty stirred up. There was no delay in Poor Things.
I watched both within a week and felt like Poor Things had a much more resounding message and theme than Barbie. And that Emma Stone killed it in regards to her performance. All that to say, to each their own.
I’d welcome your interpretation of Poor Thing’s message.
I could type out several paragraphs, but basically:Men can’t seem to not want to own things, including women, and women, and everyone, really, deserve a chance to explore and live life to discover themselves and the world around them.
This is the message we need. That wasn’t what the film showed us. Bella was, as per usual, an object in this film. She was the same-old object of desire, written by a male. She had lots of sex (on her terms), but tell me a male audience wasn’t loving it. The close-ups where she’s sweating, huffing and puffing (presumably having a great time): those are purely voyeuristic. That’s the same old male gaze at work. Having a lot of sex doesn’t make anyone an owner. The primary thing she was discovering was her own pleasure. Great, but that isn’t the key to liberation. Ask any woman who bought that BS in the 1970s. She was also a woman-of-means who could do whatver tf she wanted – but only to a point. I’d have rather seen a film about one of the prostitues she spent a little time slumming with. A smirk on a beautiful, wealthy woman’s face at the story’s conclusion does not a feminist film make.That’s why it failed and actresses have been playing versions of that for a long time.If you want to see something that challenges the Patriarchy, check out the TV series Gentleman Jack. Not perfect, but it puts the lie to this movie.
I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, but also I think that was the intent to a degree. It is a feminist movie by men, and I think that was reflected in a lot of it. I think the “Poor Things” in the title actually refer to every male character. Each embodied a part of the patriarchy in a way and it just hit for me. I’ll check that out Gentlemen Jack, though!
I agree. Stone is good in the part but I think she was kind of miscast? The role needed someone far more feral, intense, and unseemly, and I don’t think Stone was really willing to go all the way.
That’s interesting. Since, for me, the entire movie was a fail, I’m not sure if it would have made much difference, but you’ve got me thinking about it.
I haven’t seen Poor Things yet, so I can’t say, but I will note how the Oscars also seem to have a hard on for broader, bigger performances. I always think of the 1997 Oscars. Jack Nicholson was nominated for As Good as It Gets. It’s a very broad performance where Nicholson plays an asshole with a bad case of OCD. Personally, I think it’s mediocre at best, but it’s flashy, and it’s Jack. (It never really even feels like he’s acting. He’s just performing – playing himself as this role.) Peter Fonda was also nominated for Ulee’s Gold, in which he gives a beautifully understated performance as a patriarch who has to take on caring for his his addict daughter and her children. Fonda’s performance contains so much more nuance. Nicholson’s… does not. And yet, they awarded Jack because his performance was flashier in the way that doesn’t require a lot of thought. My understanding is that all Academy members get to vote on the acting categories (please correct me if I’m wrong), and it fucking shows. A lot of people don’t necessarily know how to recognize the kind of work that may be necessary to pull off a quality acting performance. They just see flash and sparkle, so to speak, and that’s what they award.
Agree. And Lanthrimos became a darling with The Favourite (10 nominations with a best performance by an actress), so I’m not at all surprised by the reception.And I agree with everything you wrote about As Good As It Gets. There were some terrific performances – Hunt, Kinnear, Gooding Jr. But, no, not Nicholson. That was Just-Jack with a side of twitchy and, at the conclusion, I was saying “Girl, just don’t.”
On one hand I feel bad for Robbie but on the other hand I’m sure somehow she’ll manage on the boatloads of money this movie has earned (rightfully) earned her.
Who fucking cares? Awards are arbitrary jokes anyways. Plus any movie about Barbie really doesn’t deserve an Oscar.
Thinks awards are arbitrary jokes and also thinks that only movies about certain subjects deserve them
That’s right
Did you see it? Gerwig took something that could easily have been some combination of joke and disaster and made something really creative out of it.
So she deserves an Oscar because the bar was super low?
No, because she made a really unique film that had to be excellent or would have gotten pounded by critics and at the box office solely because of its source material. And she delivered. I have to think pretty much everyone’s initial reaction was “A Barbie movie? Seriously??”
So many guys here still all salty. If you see this as some kind of ‘win’ you’re sore winners. Get that bag, ladies.
Commenting a bunch of times on an AV Club post isn’t going to make you not sexist. This is what the term “virtue signaling” was invented to describe.
Who are you talking to? Everyone here seems pretty reasonable about this.
Oscars nominations are usually a bit hit and miss. There have been plenty of really good fantasy/speculative fiction movies that didn’t have their directors or lead actors nominated at the time.
No reason Barbie would change that. It’s just not the kind of genre the Academy typically showers with awards. That’s all.
I’m addressing the commentariat. Are you confused?“There are arguably moments when Barbie doesn’t really know itself what it’s about.”But since I’m talking about a movie that doesn’t know what it’s about (wut, lol?), I’m probably just confused. These women all just be so crazy.
You seem nice.
I try to be.
lol, I love when people invent imaginary misogynist trolls to fight against so they can feel heroic. Literally nobody here was “hating” on any ladies.
P.S. no woman is going to see this and fuck you.
Really glad people gave a fuck to see how excited America was. Folks on SM acting like no one worth a damn got a nom, never mind who got quoted a whole lot and also had a growth journey.
How can you expect people to celebrate a brown woman when two white women are hurting!!
Jeez… It’s about Robbie and Gerwig being the ones who made the movie happen and worked the most on it.
Does everything has to be a race or gender war?
It’s pretty cool that three of five best supporting actress noms are people of colour. And I think Ferrera has a pretty good shot, though I haven’t seen all the performances so I can’t compare them myself.
It’s sad that people (especially in the industry) can’t accept that there are many great performances and films, and sometimes yours (or your favorite) doesn’t quite make the cut. There is a long history of greatness going unrewarded. For me, as someone who wasn’t a huge fan of Barbie but did find it amusing, I always thought Ferrera was the heart and soul of the film, so her nomination made perfect sense to me.
The fact that if she was nominated, there would still only be two women in the category is still ridiculous.
THEY WERE NOT SNUBBED!!!!!JFC the discourse around this is exhausting. They are both nominated. This year was one of the best years in film history. There are only so many nominated slots. To put them in, you have to take something else out, and in a year where car very category could have been expanded, it is basic math. There is not some large committee meeting to decide who gets in. Near 10000 people form 90+ countries vote. Over all this might be one of, if not the best crop of nominees ever in the history of the awards. Amazing films and work were always going to be left out. There are things i would have like to have seen in, but that would mean taking something out, and outside of a very small number, there is nothing that I can see that is truly worthy of being pulled out.
Honestly, the film was fun and all that but I kinda forgot it afterwards. Coincidentally, the characters that I remember the most were Gosling’s and Ferrera’s, as they both brought a lot to the film. Margot Robbie is great, but they did make a huge, central plot of the movie about Ken discovering the patriarchy and bringing it back to Barbie World, so that’s kinda on the writers for having such a large focus be on Ken in the first place. Also, Ferrara brought a lot of relatability to the character, and not just because I have a teenage daughter. I think she was really the heart of that film, so I’m happy she got nominated.2023 had so many great movies and personally, Barbie isn’t in my top 10 that I saw even though I did enjoy it. The money it made and the cultural impact (also thanks to the whole Barbenheimer thing) is a big commendation for them already, even if I get people feeling like two talented women were snubbed in the Oscar noms.And, unrelated: Why did you steal our profile pics, Kinja? I don’t even have that photo anymore since I deleted my facebook last year lol smh.
I stopped giving a shit about the Oscars when Crash won.
I want to stop caring. I used to care a ton until the year Titanic won Best Picture, and I was fucking mad about it. (To this day, I still say L.A. Confidential should have won.) It was the first and maybe only year I had seen all the Best Picture nominees before the ceremony. I felt entitled to my opinion. (What can I say? I was still young and naive.) I have gradually cared less and less over the years. I don’t even watch anymore. I’ll just check the news the next day. I may tune in just in case they have an “I’m Just Ken” live performance, but that’s about it. (Fun note: when my friends and I saw Barbie in cinemas on opening day, my Oscar nut friend turned to me and said, “THIS needs to be in this year’s Oscar ceremony,” during that scene. I’m glad it’ll have the chance to be.)
I’m sure someone has pointed this out but there are 10 best picture nominations and only 5 each for director and best actress, so that means a couple of other movies also got best picture nominations ‘without it’s director or star’. The answer was quite simple all along.
You have to look for the silver linings, and if nothing else we can appreciate that this situation gave us the phrase “thankfully crotchless”.
One thing the Oscars has long had a problem with is leading comedic performances. They love honoring comedic performances in supporting roles, but they don’t seem to understand how hard a high quality performance in a comedic leading role is. I’m not saying that all comedies get snubbed, but it is a matter of fact that the Oscars don’t seem to show a lot of respect for leading actors who put out performances that are lighter in tone (or a mix). They will sometimes recognize dark, auteurish comedic roles because that’s “prestige” shit. (See: any actor nominated for a Lanthimos or Wes Anderson movie.)My understanding is that most prestige actors, including some of the ones who have been nominated for and won lead acting nominations, are deathly afraid of comedy. Comedy is hard to do, and they fucking know this. What Robbie did in Barbie was deceptively complex. She sells the comedy while rarely going too broad. She’s genuinely funny, but she also pivots to being a genuinely sympathetic, empathetic, and relatable character – WHILE PLAYING A FUCKING LIVING BARBIE DOLL. How many actors could pull that off as well as she did? I have watched that movie multiple times, and after the second time, I was like, you know, Robbie is the glue that holds this movie together. Without her giving such a fantastic performance, the movie would just be a series of gags and ultimately forgettable. I have cried every time I have watched that movie, and it’s because of Gerwig’s direction and Robbie’s performance.