Oscars 2016

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

For openers, here's a retrospective that may surprise some members.

Verily, there will be Oscars and rumours of Oscars.  Remember, this is not a popularity contest but a peer-professional award system.

Sometimes, films that haven't been very good at the Box Office, turn out to be the winners of various little gold statuettes.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Then you get things like this

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2016/01/18/spee-lee-wont-attend-the-oscars/78957794/

which is why i dont really care about  awards shows

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

If the "coloured" community's nose is out of joint, maybe they should worry more about the paucity of talent.  "Coloured" performers have been honoured since Hattie McDaniel.  "Coloured" unequal good.  The only thing that should matter to the academy is the quality of the performance.  It would appear that this is the case.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

17 hours ago, Easy Bakes said:

Then you get things like this

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2016/01/18/spee-lee-wont-attend-the-oscars/78957794/

which is why i dont really care about  awards shows

Aren't they worried that the next time a black person gets nominated we won't know if it's because they actually deserved it or if it's because of some diversity quota?

I think Chris Rock made a really good point when he called it the "White BET Awards". At first I didn't realize the irony or satire in this comment, but it is quite genius. African Americans have an award show called the Black Entertainment Awards, dedicated solely to black entertainers. No one cries fowl because it is an award for one race, but the Oscars just happen to have an off year because no films with or by African Americans were nominated and people lose their minds.

However, I don't understand how Mad Max: Fury Road can be nominated  for Best Picture and not Straight Outta Compton. Fury Road does not at all deserve to be nominated and it sullies the category. Even if you think it's a good film, you have to at least be able to admit it isn't Best Picture material. It's a popcorn film with little to no substance.

[LexusInfernus 908]

16 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Aren't they worried that the next time a black person gets nominated we won't know if it's because they actually deserved it or if it's because of some diversity quota?

I think Chris Rock made a really good point when he called it the "White BET Awards". At first I didn't realize the irony or satire in this comment, but it is quite genius. African Americans have an award show called the Black Entertainment Awards, dedicated solely to black entertainers. No one cries fowl because it is an award for one race, but the Oscars just happen to have an off year because no films with or by African Americans were nominated and people lose their minds.

However, I don't understand how Mad Max: Fury Road can be nominated  for Best Picture and not Straight Outta Compton. Fury Road does not at all deserve to be nominated and it sullies the category. Even if you think it's a good film, you have to at least be able to admit it isn't Best Picture material. It's a popcorn film with little to no substance.

Yeah but Fury Road is one of the most feminist movies out there, so its probably the Oscars saying 'look, we are still progressive, we vote for a feminist movie'. 

And aside from that, the lack of diversity is a problem. I do not believe for one second that there wasn't a single black person involved in movies in the past two years who didn't deserve a nomination. Seriously, they must have gone out of their way to only nominate the white screenwriters in certain movies while ignoring the black ones that worked on the same movies as well. 

Also, its not a problem that the Black Entertainment Awards only go to black people because its literally in the name of the award. The Oscars on the other hand do not suggest that they are only for white people, they are kind of seen as the ultimate price people in the movie industry can get, the ultimate recognition from Hollywood that your film/acting skills/directing skills/etc are some of the best of that year. It is rather insulting to only nominate white people. And no, they don't happen to have an off year, this is the second year in a row that only white people are nominated. And again, I don't buy for a second that there wasn't a single black person in Hollywood who deserved a nomination. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Seems there is no end to the divisiveness in the U.S.  They've just celebrated a national holiday named for Martin Luther King, Jr. but has his influence, in spite of his oratory, been more divisive than inclusive?  IMHO the BEA should not exist.  It creates a feeling of ghettoism.

[krbe 193]

2 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

And again, I don't buy for a second that there wasn't a single black person in Hollywood who deserved a nomination. 

Those who actually do get to nominate disagree with you. And that body is apparently overwhelmingly white, predominantly male and the majority are old farts (60+) according to the LA Times. Nominations will naturally be accordingly.

That the Academy Awards 'are kind of seen as the ultimate price people in the movie industry can get' is not mandated anywhere, that is merely public perception. If the public so perceives otherwise, they are of course free to create their own awards -- then they can have their racial quotas or whatever else they want.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ The idea of racial quotas in the United States is rather contrary to their general philosophy of inclusiveness.  However, the general failure of the American culture to absorb other than Caucasian stock, especially after the Civil War, has been a problem now for over a century.  There is, of course, the truism that "birds of a feather, flock together" notwithstanding any affirmative action programmes that may exist.

Now, I tend to agree that the voting members of the academy are a dying breed.  They are mostly superannuated people who have had a lot of say in the industry in the past, but the industry has left most of them in the dust.  This may very well be their last kick at the cat. 

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences throws this annual extravaganza, so we might as well enjoy it.  If you think about it, other than the regular awards, all of the special awards are named after movie moguls from the 1930s.  The whole thing is historical in the worst sense.

[LexusInfernus 908]

7 hours ago, krbe said:

Those who actually do get to nominate disagree with you. And that body is apparently overwhelmingly white, predominantly male and the majority are old farts (60+) according to the LA Times. Nominations will naturally be accordingly.

So? That doesn't mean you can't criticize them for only nominating white people. 

[krbe 193]

Just now, LexusInfernus said:

So? That doesn't mean you can't criticize them for only nominating white people. 

So? That doesn't mean that actually matters.

[LexusInfernus 908]

1 minute ago, krbe said:

So? That doesn't mean that actually matters.

What? Criticizing a rather obvious bias? Why doesn't it matter? Even if nothing changes, at least people spoke up about it. That matters.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

10 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Yeah but Fury Road is one of the most feminist movies out there, so its probably the Oscars saying 'look, we are still progressive, we vote for a feminist movie'. 

And aside from that, the lack of diversity is a problem. I do not believe for one second that there wasn't a single black person involved in movies in the past two years who didn't deserve a nomination. Seriously, they must have gone out of their way to only nominate the white screenwriters in certain movies while ignoring the black ones that worked on the same movies as well. 

Also, its not a problem that the Black Entertainment Awards only go to black people because its literally in the name of the award. The Oscars on the other hand do not suggest that they are only for white people, they are kind of seen as the ultimate price people in the movie industry can get, the ultimate recognition from Hollywood that your film/acting skills/directing skills/etc are some of the best of that year. It is rather insulting to only nominate white people. And no, they don't happen to have an off year, this is the second year in a row that only white people are nominated. And again, I don't buy for a second that there wasn't a single black person in Hollywood who deserved a nomination. 

I disagree that Mad Max is a feminist film, whatever that means. It's hardly feminist, except for the fact that it has a female character who can kick ass, which is hardly new and debatably feminist.

Yes, the Oscars aren't only for white people, that's the contrast Rock is making. Blacks have their own award show, if there was such thing as the White Entertainment Awards it would be called racist. Just because there have been, as you brought to my attention, 2 years since a black person hasn't been nominated for a prominent award, that doesn't mean the voters were racially biases. It could be because there were no good selections of black actors or god forbid that the roles played by white actors were better (it is possible isn't it?). I haven't seen the movies that have been allegedly overlooked so I can't judge.

As for going out of their way to only nominate white people, I don't believe that for one second, especially after they went out of their way to nominate 12 Years A Slave even though people admitted to not having seen it. They just voted for it because they thought it was the politically correct thing to do.

As host Ellen DeGeneres put it, to equal laughs and winces from the audiences: "Possibility number one: 12 Years a Slave wins best picture. Possibility number two: You're all racists."

If anything the Academy will bend over backward for politically correct causes.

Alejandro González Iñárritu won for Best Director in 2014 and is nominated in 2015. He's not black, but he is Mexican. Does he count in any way? Does it matter more if a black person is nominated over a a Mexican person?

[LexusInfernus 908]

1 minute ago, MilitantRadical said:

I disagree that Mad Max is a feminist film, whatever that means. It's hardly feminist, except for the fact that it has a female character who can kick ass, which is hardly new.

Its a movie thats literally about women telling the big bad guy that they are not his property and escape a life of sexual slavery. Thats feminist as hell. 

1 minute ago, MilitantRadical said:

Yes, the Oscars aren't only for white people, that's the contrast Rock is making. Blacks have their own award show, if there was such thing as the White Entertainment Awards it would be called racist. Just because there have been, as you brought to my attention, 2 years since a black person hasn't been nominated for a prominent award, that doesn't mean the voters were racially biases. It could be because there were no good selections of black actors or god forbid that the roles played by white actors were better (it is possible isn't it?). I haven't seen the movies that have been allegedly overlooked so I can't judge.

I think its statistically unlikely that there wasn't a single black person working Hollywood in the last two years that deserves an Oscar. Statistically there should have been more than 1. And we are talking about nominations here, not even winning, but simple nominations. I just don't buy the argument that white people have been so exceptionally good at movies that they get all the nominations. 

[krbe 193]

If I recall correctly, there are five nominees minimum and ten max. Blacks in themselves make up some 12-15% of the American population. Supposedly they are a disadvantaged minority. The voting body is supposedly 94% white. 

The categories are individual and not compounded, so the fact that someone were left out from one category, doesn't increase that persons race's chances in other categories. It is n enough that there is 'a single black' 'worthy' of an Oscar. That person must be between his/hers top ten *at least*. Tricky, when your race only make up 12% of the population and the major ethnicity has a free pass to everything. 

And as for 'criticising' - less talking more action. Whining is not an agent of change, but I suppose lazy people without a real interest in the change can seem to be good if they do.  

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

7 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Its a movie thats literally about women telling the big bad guy that they are not his property and escape a life of sexual slavery. Thats feminist as hell. 

Sexualized damsels used as male audience eye-candy who literally stop to have a wet t-shirt contest in the middle of the desert being rescued by a de-feminized hyper-masculine duo ultimately lead to victory by a man. Not feminist. Like I said, it's debatable whether or not the film is feminist.

7 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

I think its statistically unlikely that there wasn't a single black person working Hollywood in the last two years that deserves an Oscar. Statistically there should have been more than 1.

You think but you don't know for sure. What percentage of Hollywood is black? You don't know. What percentage of black people worked on Academy nominated films? You don't know. You can't tell me "statistically" because you don't know the statistical breakdown of African Americans in hollywood. Not all positions on a film are "worthy" of awards, there are many people and positions that get overlooked, but just because those positions aren't nominated for Awards doesn't mean they aren't valuable. There could be black people working in key positions who don't get any Awards same as white people who also occupy those "lesser" positions. The awards they give out at the Oscars only account for a small fraction of positions on any major film.

7 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

I just don't buy the argument that white people have been so exceptionally good at movies that they get all the nominations. 

But you do buy the argument that because of inherent racism the voters discriminated against black actors - no matter how good the performance?

And you didn't answer my question. Does Alejandro González Iñárritu count as a non-white winning being nominated for and winning an Academy Award? Does it matter more if it's a black person?

I'm moving here:

 

[Easy Bakes 253]

Maybe they should change who gets to vote for Oscars?

make it like the Heisman  Trophy  all living  past winners get a vote. or get to nominate or however its done.

 

 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

 

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Hattie McDaniel.

My memory was correct.  Praise is given where praise is due.  You need to do something praiseworthy to be recognized. 

All you disgruntled people of colour -- what have you done that is praiseworthy?  This doesn't work on a quota by race system.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The other side of the coin.

Is the lady saying that racism is a two-way street?  It appears so.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Looks like they changed the rules

 

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jan/22/oscars-new-rules-diversity-academy-awards-2016

 

wonder how many of the old voters will actually be eliminated?
 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

5 hours ago, Easy Bakes said:

Looks like they changed the rules

 

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jan/22/oscars-new-rules-diversity-academy-awards-2016

 

wonder how many of the old voters will actually be eliminated?
 

Won't affect the current situation.  They are aiming to have this transition done by 2020.  Academy needs more transparency on who can vote.

[LexusInfernus 908]

On 1/22/2016 at 1:29 AM, krbe said:

And as for 'criticising' - less talking more action. Whining is not an agent of change, but I suppose lazy people without a real interest in the change can seem to be good if they do.  

The fact that the Academy is going to change the way people become members to ensure more diversity proves that harsh criticism (or as you called 'whining') is actually an agent of change. 

 

Quote

Sexualized damsels used as male audience eye-candy who literally stop to have a wet t-shirt contest in the middle of the desert being rescued by a de-feminized hyper-masculine duo ultimately lead to victory by a man. Not feminist. Like I said, it's debatable whether or not the film is feminist.

Right, those wives are not 'male audience eye candy' because 1) the story pretty much revolves around them escaping with Furiosa from Joe, it is literally what pushes the plot, 2) they have a certain degree of agency and 3) its not a guy that saves them. They get set free by Furiosa and Max tags along. Sure, he helps them, but to say their freedom is solely due to the fact that Max interfered would be wrong. If you don't think its Feminist, fine, just remember that pretty much everyone else (and certainly all the critics) did see it as a very Feminist movie. You asked why it was nominated for an Oscar, well that might be why. 

[krbe 193]

On 1/23/2016 at 0:48 PM, LexusInfernus said:

The fact that the Academy is going to change the way people become members to ensure more diversity proves that harsh criticism (or as you called 'whining') is actually an agent of change. 

So they change again. Let's see if that can make George Lucas a member; he does not currently have the opportunity to vote for the politically correct candidates, as he's upset that his colleagues don't employ a quota system.

On 1/23/2016 at 0:48 PM, LexusInfernus said:

You asked why it was nominated for an Oscar, well that might be why. 

So the body that is wholly unable to nominate 'minorities' to individual awards is fine with nominating Best Picture along ideological lines  (as opposed to nominating it because it is, in fact, better than its competitors)?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Thinking about all this, is it not a tempest in a 21st Century teapot?  And it is whinging.  The conditions are well known, so who is in a position to complain? 

Perhaps the jury (those who vote) needs overhaul.  It is getting that.  Will it make any difference?  Probably not.  Mediocrity is not up for recognition. 

Do you think selecting a black actress for the part of Hermione Granger is going to earn her an automatic Tony award?  Stage acting is at least an order of magnitude more difficult than film acting because there are no chances to retake a scene.  If you botch it, you botch it.  No coddling.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

A push back from a voting member.

Interesting accountability issue here of not knowing whether voting members have viewed all the films they've been sent.  I like the idea of a private streaming service with secure, logged sign on.  In this day and age, this would certainly verify who was really qualified to vote.

[Hellken 1,658]

The ongoing accusation by some people about perceived bias against black members of the American community in the Oscars is up in the air. However, I will say this: The Oscars and Academy Awards should always be handed to people who deserve awards. We should never distribute and divide the Oscars pie for the sake of representing each ethnicity. Some people are proposing we settle this by dividing voting seats by race. That is reverse discrimination.

What next? Are people of Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American and Hispanic descent going to cry foul too? 

Besides, it's likely that the awards committees are not at fault. After all, they can only judge what you show them. Minority actors land 15% of top roles (see below) and 15% of the nominations which is not such a statistical imbalance.

 

Quote

 

Of course the data are not random. Yet, despite the 2015-2016 whiteout, an analysis of Oscar selections since 2000 suggests that the imbalances are industry-wide, not primarily to do with Academy voters. And they affect all ethnic minorities. Oscar nominations have not dramatically under-represented black actors. Instead, they have greatly over-represented white ones. Blacks are 12.6% of the American population, and 10% of Oscar nominations since 2000 have gone to black actors. But just 3% of nominations have gone to their Hispanic peers (16% of the population), 1% to those with Asian backgrounds, and 2% to those of other heritage (see chart).

Black actors get speaking roles in rough proportion to their percentage of America’s population, according to a study of 600 top films from 2007-2013 at the Annenberg Center for Communication and Journalism. (See “film roles” in the chart above.) Again, Latinos and Asians do much worse. But blacks are under-represented in the roles that count for the Oscars, getting just 9% of the top roles since 2000, according to our own analysis. (We define “top roles” as the top three names on the cast-list on IMDb, an online film database, in films with a rating of 7.5 or greater, an American box-office gross of at least $10m, and which were neither animated nor in a foreign language.)

The numbers indicate that, whereas the film industry most certainly fails to represent America’s diversity, the whitewashing occurs not behind the closed doors of the Academy, but in drama schools (shown in the SAG membership) and casting offices. For most of the past 15 years, the Academy has largely judged what has been put in front of them: minority actors land 15% of top roles, 15% of nominations and 17% of wins. Once up for top roles, black actors do well, converting 9% of top roles into 10% of best-actor nominations and 15% of the coveted golden statuettes, a bit above their share of the general population.

 

 

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Considering the demographics in this universe of discourse, the world appears to be unfolding as it should.  The only fly in the ointment is the voting members not finding the time to view all the material sent to them.  Information overload can result in short-term imbalances, but in this case the main deciding factors must be performance and demonstrated talent.  No other criteria should apply, especially ethnicity.

Seems there is this feeling of "entitlement" among some members of the entertainment community.  This is becoming more and more endemic when there are no other strains on our society.