Racism and the Oscars thread

[Avatree]

Just now, Cmasterclay said:

The "12 YAS won an Oscar, the Academy can't have a race problem!" argument is sorta the same as the "America has a black President, so racism and racial problems are done!!" argument. Outliers are outliers for a reason. Yes, they both DO indicate terrific progress for our society- but at the same time, they don't mean we can stop moving forward and attempting to facilitate positive changes. 

 

"outliers"

>

On 1/21/2016 at 8:43 PM, misafeco said:

10% of all acting nominees in the 21th century were black.

15% of all acting winners in the 21th century were black.

12.6% of the US population are black.

 

Where is the problem?

[Cmasterclay]

Just now, Total Treecall said:

 

"outliers"

>

 

First of all, as noted above, when you factor in people of mixed race, Latinos, East Asians, Indians, people of Middle Eastern descent, and others, 40 percent of the country is people of color, and that's CERTAINLY not represenative of the Oscars. Second of all, I need to do that math for myself, because that poster has a history of very conservative posts that attempt to put down "social justice warriors." Third, even if they are true, they certainly aren't indicative of the past five or six years. Fourth, yes, when you look at the diversity of our country, the stories that we tell, our icons in culture.....one Best Picture movie and a couple of early victories in the first half of the century does NOT represent our culture or our country. 

[4815162342]

3 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

The "12 YAS won an Oscar, the Academy can't have a race problem!" argument is sorta the same as the "America has a black President, so racism and racial problems are done!!" argument. Outliers are outliers for a reason. Yes, they both DO indicate terrific progress for our society- but at the same time, they don't mean we can stop moving forward and attempting to facilitate positive changes. 

 

The thing is that black people being nominated for black-themed films about historical black traumas doesn't solve the industry problem of highly prized race-neutral roles simply not open for minorities to compete for more often than not.

 

So 12 Years a Slave isn't a temporary balm to the problem, it is a symptom of the wider problem.

[Cmasterclay]

1 minute ago, 4815162342 said:

 

The thing is that black people being nominated for black-themed films about historical black traumas doesn't solve the industry problem of highly prized race-neutral roles simply not open for minorities to compete for more often than not.

 

So 12 Years a Slave isn't a temporary balm to the problem, it is a symptom of the wider problem.

I agree. It is a systemic and industry wide problem, and 12 YAS is indeed a symptom of the wider problem. It's a very complex and multi-faceted issue (though some will have you believe that diversity in movies isn't a problem in movies at all, but lol). But I just don't like the idea of Oscars being dismissed out of hand as an important part of it, because they are a major part of the industry. They give the type of prestige needed for POC to greelight projects. They encourage young actors to pursue their dreams. They do matter. But again, despite all the people dismissing it, something got done! I don't know why people have a problem with it (well I do, but...)- as Tele explained eloquently, these are logical, common sense solutions that will spurn diversity and modernized the Academy. Much needed. This is a good thing. 

[Dementeleus]

2 minutes ago, 4815162342 said:

 

The thing is that black people being nominated for black-themed films about historical black traumas doesn't solve the industry problem of highly prized race-neutral roles simply not open for minorities to compete for more often than not.

 

So 12 Years a Slave isn't a temporary balm to the problem, it is a symptom of the wider problem.

 

It's worth noting that in their Scriptnotes podcast, veteran screenwriters John August and Craig Mazin have pointed out that the default casting assumption in all roles is white, even when it's an entirely race-neutral part. You have to literally spell it out in order to get studios, execs, and casting agencies to start considering minority actors. (And I'm not trying to point the finger just at studios, execs, and agents -- it just shows how systemic the thinking is).

[baumer]

7 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

The "12 YAS won an Oscar, the Academy can't have a race problem!" argument is sorta the same as the "America has a black President, so racism and racial problems are done!!" argument. Outliers are outliers for a reason. Yes, they both DO indicate terrific progress for our society- but at the same time, they don't mean we can stop moving forward and attempting to facilitate positive changes. 

 

So facilitating positive change means to nominate  black actors every year?  Even if their performances weren't really all that great to begin with?

 

Look, I'm one of those guys that thinks Denzel and Ving Rhames could get nominated for every role they perform.  But that's just my opinion and obviously its a minority opinion.  The academy doesn't go by Rotten Tomatoes or what Siskel and Ebert used to say, they go by what they think are the best films and performances of the year or who paid them the most money to buy the oscar.  I just don't see this as a race issue at all.  

 

The reason it bothers me when I hear that Selma was robbed is that it's a film about race relations and about MLK so for some reason that automatically gives it a free pass to Oscar glory?  I think that's incredibly myopic and I don't subscribe to that theory at all.

 

And finally, we're talking about an awards show that is so superficial as it is already, so why people get up in arms about it is just baffling.

[Dementeleus]

1 minute ago, Cmasterclay said:

But I just don't like the idea of Oscars being dismissed out of hand as an important part of it, because they are a major part of the industry. They give the type of prestige needed for POC to greelight projects. They encourage young actors to pursue their dreams.

 

True -- but of course the problem arises because you're using the term "they" to refer to them as a single collective entity... when of course they're 6,000-odd people who can vote however they choose.

[Cmasterclay]

Just now, Baumer said:

 

So facilitating positive change means to nominate  black actors every year?  Even if their performances weren't really all that great to begin with?

 

Look, I'm one of those guys that thinks Denzel and Ving Rhames could get nominated for every role they perform.  But that's just my opinion and obviously its a minority opinion.  The academy doesn't go by Rotten Tomatoes or what Siskel and Ebert used to say, they go by what they think are the best films and performances of the year or who paid them the most money to buy the oscar.  I just don't see this as a race issue at all.  

 

The reason it bothers me when I hear that Selma was robbed is that it's a film about race relations and about MLK so for some reason that automatically gives it a free pass to Oscar glory?  I think that's incredibly myopic and I don't subscribe to that theory at all.

 

And finally, we're talking about an awards show that is so superficial as it is already, so why people get up in arms about it is just baffling.

I've noted why it's important to get up in arms about it several times, so there's that. Again, every performance almost every year is a white person, except for maybe one or two, despite the legions of incredibly high praised actors of color that give praised every year. The figures in the Oscars do not represent the diversity of Hollywood or the movie-going public. That isn't just because it HAPPENS that the performances that were just not quiteeee deserving enough just happen to be all the actors of color- it indicates a systemic problem in the voting. And that does NOT mean that the voters are out and out racist, at all. But 94 percent of them are white. Most of them are very old. As tele noted, most of them are very old-fashioned. Every shred of research shows that the majority of the population has moderate subsconcious racial biases, in addition to old white people just not understanding the issues and the themes and even the language of the performances. So because of this system, they are being snubbed. What these changes means is that the voters will be younger, more diverse, and much more represenatiive of the movie-going public at large. That is a good thing. I don't know how to argue otherwise. 

[Cmasterclay]

4 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

 

True -- but of course the problem arises because you're using the term "they" to refer to them as a single collective entity... when of course they're 6,000-odd people who can vote however they choose.

I meant the Oscars as a ceremony and something symoblic AND used in marketing- not the votership of the Academy itself. My b. 

[Dementeleus]

It's probably worth pointing out that if the Academy is successful in making its membership demos younger and more diverse, we'll probably see better chances of well-received blockbusters getting in. (What's considered a blockbuster is probably always a point of contention, since I suppose you can fairly consider REVENANT and FURY ROAD "blockbusters", even if ultimately they're on the lower-tier of that category).

[baumer]

5 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

I've noted why it's important to get up in arms about it several times, so there's that. Again, every performance almost every year is a white person, except for maybe one or two, despite the legions of incredibly high praised actors of color that give praised every year. The figures in the Oscars do not represent the diversity of Hollywood or the movie-going public. That isn't just because it HAPPENS that the performances that were just not quiteeee deserving enough just happen to be all the actors of color- it indicates a systemic problem in the voting. And that does NOT mean that the voters are out and out racist, at all. But 94 percent of them are white. Most of them are very old. As tele noted, most of them are very old-fashioned. Every shred of research shows that the majority of the population has moderate subsconcious racial biases, in addition to old white people just not understanding the issues and the themes and even the language of the performances. So because of this system, they are being snubbed. What these changes means is that the voters will be younger, more diverse, and much more represenatiive of the movie-going public at large. That is a good thing. I don't know how to argue otherwise. 

 

Now this is a post I agree with.  The old fucks who are about to keel over and were of drinking age in the 20's (the year Tele was born) should definitely not have a vote in the oscars anymore.  I think it should be much more diverse and your membership should be revoked if you haven't done anything for years.  This would certainly help voters not just with race and gender but also with nominating all good films, not just films about white lesbians in the 50's or guys with diseases.  IMO, everything has to change about the voting process...especially the kinds of films and performances they nominate.  Seeing a performance like Kevin Klein win for Fish Called Wanda was shocking because it was a comedy.  They ignore anything that isn't a drama and that too has to change.  So I think we are sort of on the same page, cmaster.

[Harpospoke]

26 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

The "12 YAS won an Oscar, the Academy can't have a race problem!" argument is sorta the same as the "America has a black President, so racism and racial problems are done!!" argument. Outliers are outliers for a reason. Yes, they both DO indicate terrific progress for our society- but at the same time, they don't mean we can stop moving forward and attempting to facilitate positive changes. 

 

When a society elects a minority to be their leader two times in a row (so it wasn't a fluke), that indicates said society is not racist.   If you can find a country other than the US which has done that, I would be interested in hearing about it.   Have they ever done that in Europe?  Asia?  South America?

 

There are obviously no limits to what any person can do in the US when a minority race can become President.

 

20 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

First of all, as noted above, when you factor in people of mixed race, Latinos, East Asians, Indians, people of Middle Eastern descent, and others, 40 percent of the country is people of color, and that's CERTAINLY not represenative of the Oscars. Second of all, I need to do that math for myself, because that poster has a history of very conservative posts that attempt to put down "social justice warriors." Third, even if they are true, they certainly aren't indicative of the past five or six years. Fourth, yes, when you look at the diversity of our country, the stories that we tell, our icons in culture.....one Best Picture movie and a couple of early victories in the first half of the century does NOT represent our culture or our country. 

 

The problem is, we don't insist that every field be equally represented in terms of race and gender.    Do we "attempt positive change" in professional sports when white athletes are under represented in terms of "percentage"?   Do we "attempt positive change" when females are under represented in dangerous professions and the armed forces?

 

Or do we realize that just adding up numbers is not the logical way to look at things like that?   Are women as interested in pursuing dangerous jobs and the armed forces?   Is sexism holding them back?   Are white athletes under represented in sports because of racism?   Surely that must be it, right?

 

Or maybe it's true that white athletes just aren't as good at football and basketball and start pursuing coaching positions early in their college and high school careers as a result?  (which of course explains why the white guys are stuck with the jobs which pay less, have longer hours, and garner little fame and glory.   Amazing that even that is attacked as caused by "racism".)

 

So maybe it makes more sense to look at the numbers of how many races pursue acting instead of looking at general population numbers.   That's what we do when whites are under represented.  Double standards make it look like an agenda.

[Jawa]

57 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

First of all, as noted above, when you factor in people of mixed race, Latinos, East Asians, Indians, people of Middle Eastern descent, and others, 40 percent of the country is people of color, and that's CERTAINLY not represenative of the Oscars. Second of all, I need to do that math for myself, because that poster has a history of very conservative posts that attempt to put down "social justice warriors." Third, even if they are true, they certainly aren't indicative of the past five or six years. Fourth, yes, when you look at the diversity of our country, the stories that we tell, our icons in culture.....one Best Picture movie and a couple of early victories in the first half of the century does NOT represent our culture or our country. 

 

Are you referring to me with this post? I'm a bit confused here.

[Cmasterclay]

3 minutes ago, Jawa said:

 

Are you referring to me with this post? I'm a bit confused here.

No no. You're good. Your argument was fine, even if I didn't fully agree. 

[Kalo]

It's an Awards ceremony!!! it's not supposed to be PC, how could it be? if the academy felt they had to pander to a certain demographic, race, it would be incredibly racist! now if they were catering to whites because they are white, that would be one thing, however I haven't seen every film released in 2015. but from what I heard no minority race performance this year was good enough to get a nomination this year, Michael B. Jordan, in Creed. was probably the best performance I have personally seen by a black actor all year, he was really good, but the BA category was just so stacked this year, who would you replace for him? it is simply who has done the best job acting that year.(which is very subjective of course and I don't always agree with it) part of this may have to do with the fact that there are less meaty roles for them. which is more the industry's fault then the academy's. I am mentioning mostly blacks because they are the ones mostly complaining from what I have seen. also let's not forget that Hollywood is in you know in America, which is populated by mostly white people, and most actors, if they aren't american generally come from richer nations like Europe and Australia, and Asia and India seem to be happy with their own major film industries (which btw feature Asian and indian actors way more prominently than north america does whites) because well people with terrible economies like Africa usually have bigger things to worry about the movies. (which is sad but true) the caucasian races makes up over 60% of North America, African Americans make up a little over 13% so naturally you would assume that there would by default be more white people working in the film industry, which statistically speaking would mean the chances for a white person being nominated over an ethnic race, would be higher, much higher to be honest. and if the academy are so racists then why are people of color nominated at all? why did Hattie McDaniel won the oscar for best supporting actress in 1940? why did Lupita Nyong'o win it in 2014? because they deserved to that's why! (that's what most people believe anyways). and lets not forget, Iñárritu won the best director award last year and he is hispanic! and he is nominated and could very well win again this year! this generation needs to wake up and realize what they are doing, we are in a point in time where everyone is raised to be babies and complain if they don't get everything they want handed to them on a silver platter. and every wants to heard, social media has become a casualty of that, by people speaking out and crying racism when they don't even know what racism is, they are dividing the nation (and world) and creating racism, perhaps not intentionally, but I see it happening, and creating bridges where there were none. I am no genius and I may be ignorant about some things that go on behind the scenes, but this is how I feel about it. it is social noise meant to create a stir where there is none. 

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." -Thomas Jefferson. 

Edited January 23, 2016 by Kalo

[Goffe]

1 hour ago, Cmasterclay said:

Ok, sure, whatever. Agree to disagree on that, like I said. But a few people's opinions on Selma's quality does not automatically dismiss an entire movement or render a discussion invalid, either. 

 

it does when some people fail to recognize other people's points.

 

4 hours ago, Biph Shmata said:

Oscar screwed up with those 2 empty BP slots if Compton and or Creed were up for BP then the dearth of non-white nominees in the acting categories wouldn't be a big deal. 

 

3 hours ago, CJohn said:

Last year Selma was nominated for BP and everyone still complained.

 

3 hours ago, Cmasterclay said:

Yea, because Selma was fucking spectacular, and it got nothing in any acting or tech category or in Director, while shit shows like Theory of Everything and Imitation Game, the ultimate in uber white Oscar baiting, got nominated for stuff most people think they didn't deserve. Yea, Selma got ONE token nomination. Whoope. 

 

If Selma was so objectively spectacular that the Oscars couldn't possibly ignore it (despite botched FYC campaign), why weren't Michael B Jordan or SOC nominated as well? simple, because they weren't as good as the ones that were actually nominated from Academy members perspective.

 

4 hours ago, Cmasterclay said:

I don't think the people saying that this was a bad year for POC in acting roles are racist, but they certainly don't have very good taste. Spare me those bullshit argument, every one of those actors are better than someone like Redmayne. 

that's exactly what Charlotte Rampling was talking about when she said "It is racist against whites" 

 

12YS was nominated to 9 Oscars and won 3 of them (including the most important one) in 2013. Selma was nominated to BP (despite Paramount screwing up the campaign) and a Mexican guy made a film that was nominated to 9 Oscars and won 4 of them (including directing and picture) in 2014. Someone posted in the first page that the number of POC winners and nominees was more or less correspondent to the percentage of black people in the USA.

 

So yeah I'm clearly on the camp that thinks this #Oscarsowhite thing got extremely overblown.

Yet, I do think a case could be made about minorities not getting enough lead roles (even though I can understand why they don't), which is the true problem here. I also appreciate Oscar's initiative to diversify the voting body.

[Bond Bug]

1 hour ago, 4815162342 said:

 

Agreed, Ian McKellen got robbed.

 

Ironic. I remember an interview with academy member Ian McKellen in which he said he didn't bother to watch all the movies he votes for.   

[Kalo]

Another point to make doesn't the academy consists of over 6,000 voters and aren't they kind of supposed keep their voting to themselves? how could the academy silently make a racist decision to not nominate minority race actors? and even if there are some racists in the voting, it would most likely be a very small percentage, if it were large than I feel minority race actors would never be nominated. and hopefully the racist culprits would be found and kicked out. 

Edited January 23, 2016 by Kalo

[Goffe]

7 minutes ago, Bond Bug said:

 

Ironic. I remember an interview with academy member Ian McKellen in which he said he didn't bother to watch all the movies he votes for.   

in regard to your last post and this one

 

Two Oscar Voters Admit They Didn't Watch 12 Years A Slave, Voted For It Anyway

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Two-Oscar-Voters-Admit-They-Didn-t-Watch-12-Years-Slave-Voted-It-Anyway-41981.html

 

It goes both ways.

[The Panda]

It seems like many people are completely missing the point of what systemic racism is and how it effects the academy and film industry.

 

Systemic racism isn't necessarily "everyone hating black people."  Systemic racism is the overall exclusion of a particular race from a particular career, social class, etc.  or that certain race being profiled (maybe not intentionally) more by law enforcement and thus leading to more of that race in a viscous law cycle.  It's the reason why the reason there are more minorities in poverty than whites isn't because the white man worked harder to get there, it's that racism is structurally embedded in US society and minorities are still suffering from it and whites are still benefitting form it.

 

You also can't really compare how this affects one industry to another.  For example, different kinds of musicians and sports players is a more demographically based explanation.  Like how, Rap and R&B are more popular in inner "urban" communities, which are more demographically full of minorities for the reasons above of racism being structurally embedded into US society even to the point of where people live.

 

As for the film industry, it's not that minorities are less talented or less willing to act that they aren't proportionally represented in the film industry.  It's more of how they get hired, and how it's easier for someone from an upper or more privileged class to get a good position within the industry.  There's also the problems of casting directors often making an assumption that, unless stated otherwise, the role is white.  It's subconscious, but it's still a racist result from how our society is structured.

 

Awards wise, in actuality, the average of minorities nommed in every category (not just acting) should be 2 minorities and 3 whites based on actual population, and that simply isn't true.  One, for an undiverse voting base, and two from a lack of opportunity in the film industry for minorities when compared to whites.