Oscars controversy.....again!

[peter]

For the second year running The Academy Awards is being accused of closet racism in respect of the dearth of black actors in the nominees. I think it's bullshit!

[I'm Murrin]

Bullshit that non-white actors are completely overlooked, or bullshit that they're complaining about it?

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Bullshit that non-white actors are completely overlooked, or bullshit that they're complaining about it?

Both!!! He's pissed, alright.

[peter]

Bullshit that they're overlooked at all. It would be plain madness for the Academy Awards selection committee to persue a deliberate policy of exculsion against any group: why would they do that? Besides, perusal of the various categories of previous years shows many black nominees, and in films and roles that really deserve to be there. The moment you start filling quotas on the strength of political correctness, be it for black's, women, gays whatever, you do them a grave disservice. Inclusion of films must be on merit alone or the whole thing becomes worthless.

[wayfriend]

Inclusion of films must be on merit alone or the whole thing becomes worthless.

I think it's a disservice to claim a group of people are asking for awards that they don't merit. Why have no black actors merited an award in the last two years? That question is closer to the true issue than your [oft repeated] dismissal of it.

[peter]

Do you mean that there have been black actors that have been deliberately slighted in the past two years WF even though they have merited inclusion over and above those that were included, or that no black actors have merited inclusion (over and above etc), and this deficiency is what needs answering.

If the first is the case, then as I say, I don't see it and the burden of demonstration rests with those who claim they do. Black actors/directors etc probably alas form a relatively small sub-set of the total professional group as a whole and I imagine their percentage nomination total over the board and across the years might reflect this......but this is not evidence of institutionalised racist bias any more than a high percentage of say American nominees is evidence of positive bias in that direction.

[wayfriend]

Do you mean that there have been black actors that have been deliberately slighted in the past two years WF even though they have merited inclusion over and above those that were included, or that no black actors have merited inclusion (over and above etc), and this deficiency is what needs answering.

No, I mean no one is served well by claiming that people want credit for awards that they don't merit, when that is a mischaracterization of the issue, and one that unfairly maligns a whole group of people. (And isn't that what you're trying to claim isn't happening? FAIL.)

That being said, this is not a problem manifest in particulars, but in accumulation. You can argue that Will Smith did or did not deserve a nomination for Concussion. That would also dis-serve the issue, as it's not an issue about particular choices, but about general tendencies.

Black actors/directors etc probably alas form a relatively small sub-set of the total professional group as a whole and I imagine their percentage nomination total over the board and across the years might reflect this......but this is not evidence of institutionalised racist bias any more than a high percentage of say American nominees is evidence of positive bias in that direction.

It's been pointed out that the number of awards for minorities, proportionally, is in fact much smaller than participation by minorities would suggest.

Aside from someone verbally admitting to a bias, what other evidence would it be possible to obtain? If it is impossible to sufficiently prove bias to those who choose to believe that there is none, even if bias was in fact present, how can one steadfastly avow there is none?

Integrity includes avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. In other words, looking bad is sufficient in and of itself to warrant improving things.

If there are no major awards for black actors over a period of several years, is the cause that black actors aren't as good as white actors? Or is it that black actors aren't given the same opportunities as white actors? Or is it that black actors are adjudged differently than white actors? Or is it that black actors don't receive the same training as white actors? Or is it a massively improbable coincidence?

I don't know the answer. No one claims to know the answer. It just seems like, whatever the answer is, it's something that indicates a problem.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

This got mentioned in the "race" thread in the Tank.

Currently, the people who vote to nominate the movies for Academy Awards are all white. Every single one of them. I think almost all of them are males, as well. This is Hollywood's not-very-closely-guarded secret: the real industry insiders, the ones who cough up the money to produce movies and the ones who ultimately run the studios, are mostly white males. The number one movie demographic is also still young white males aged 16 - 28 (or something like that).

There is a huge disconnect between the people making the movies and the people who go to see movies. People sitting in the seats don't really care too much about the race/ethnicity and/or gender of the lead role; all they really care about is whether or not there were enough explosions, enough plot twists, or enough personal drama to make their experience worthwhile. Currently, black people still constitute only 13% of the overall population (I rounded up to the nearest whole number); any movie made by a black-run studio, with a black director in the chair, where the vast majority of characters are black, and where the movie's target audience is black people, isn't going to get anywhere near the ticket sales of a movie like, oh, Guardians of the Galaxy. That doesn't mean the movie is of a lower quality but it does mean that it isn't going to be seen by as many people and it may not make any waves in Hollywood in general; thus, such a movie is more likely to be overlooked. One of the articles I read about this story quoted one of the Academy voters as saying about a movie featuring a black actor "I didn't watch it". They aren't even watching the movies that are being nominated so it is no surprise that black actors aren't up for all the major awards.

Now...the larger question is this: should black actors be nominated because they are black or in the interest of equality or should actors be nominated based on the strength of their performances? Is Will Smith a better actor than Anthony Hopkins? Probably not. Is Denzel Washington a better actor than Harrison Ford? Probably so. That being said, name the last movie Harrison Ford was in before The Force Awakens. (answer: The Age of Adeline...I have never heard of that movie...oh, he was in Expendables 3, another movie I never saw). Is the demographic breakdown of actors in Hollywood the same as the demographic breakdown of the nation as a whole? I don't know but I suspect it isn't. On the one hand that doesn't matter but on the other hand in a purely race-blind society the number of Academy Award nominations should pretty much mirror the overall demographic breakdown of the nation.

All things considered, this is a controversy only inside Hollywood. The vast majority of people not inside that fake, shallow world care nothing at all for Academy Awards--they are irrelevant. If you want to fight for more racial equality then pick a better venue than the Oscars.

Speaking of racial equality...what would "equality" look like? If we elected some sort of new political body with 100 members in it how many of those members should be black? As many as are white? Why, when the current demographics are still (ballparking here, exact figures not in front of me) 64% white, 13% black (ignoring all others)? Does "equality" mean "equal representation" or does it mean "demographically accurate representation"? If there were 30 white and 30 black members then white people would be under-represented and black people would be over-represented; this would not be "equal".

[wayfriend]

Now...the larger question is this: should black actors be nominated because they are black or in the interest of equality or should actors be nominated based on the strength of their performances?

(See what I mean, peter? oft repeated.)

All things considered, this is a controversy only inside Hollywood.

I don't think it's as as irrelevant as you do. How minorities are portrayed in movies has a large effect on how minorities are viewed in general. Nor is denying someone equal opportunity based on race ever okay in small quantities or in secluded niches. "Yeah, but who cares about actors, anyway?" doesn't seem like the right response.

If we elected some sort of new political body with 100 members in it how many of those members should be black? As many as are white?

Yes. See above, re: treating an issue of aggregation as if it's an issue about specifics is a disservice to the issue.

Equality looks like no one feeling like they're oppressed based on their superficial features. Integrity includes avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

That is why I cited the group of people who nominate movies and actors for awards: all of them are white; therefore, if there is a problem with a lack of diversity in the Academy Awards it starts with those people, not the people who go to the movie theaters to see movies.

If we elected some sort of new political body with 100 members in it how many of those members should be black? As many as are white?

Yes. See above, re: treating an issue of aggregation as if it's an issue about specifics is a disservice to the issue.

Equality looks like no one feeling like they're oppressed based on their superficial features. Integrity includes avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.

I do not disagree with this assessment. The problem is that people these days think they are being oppressed when they really aren't; too many people equate "I didn't get my may" with "the system is oppressing me" when that simply isn't the case. Why is Spike Lee complaining? He has won a lot of awards...just not at the Academy Awards. Is that the only awards show that matters?

The nature of Hollywood and the nature of the country in general are so dissimilar that problems of racial inequality in one (Hollywood) cannot be extrapolated to conclude racial inequality in the other. That isn't to say that racial inequality still doesn't exist but that brings me back to my earlier point about demographics. If 20% of a group are right-handed and 80% are left-handed, then we would expect to find 20% of the jobs being given to right-handed people. That is not indicative of discrimination, only that there are 20% of people who are right-handed. Ideally, you give the job to the best candidate but sometimes the best candidate is left-handed.

Perhaps if Hollywood made decent movies with new, original content and quit crunching out sequels and reboots all the time more of us might actually care about the awards show. As it is, though, I couldn't care less who gets nominated or who gets left out for whatever reason.

[peter]

I'm not claiming anyone wants credit for awards they don't merit and neither come to that is Spike Lee. This implies they already have the awards. And it is about specifics: every year a bunch of films are produced and every year specific films are selected that the committee deems to be the best. If black actors or directors have been overlooked that should not have been then we should be told who they are - how else can we judge whether they should be included?

[wayfriend]

The problem is that people these days think they are being oppressed when they really aren't

A more insidious problem is campaigns to denigrate people who dare to claim oppression. These people don't demonstrate that there is no oppression; they declare there is none, work backwards, and undermine the credibility of people who speak up. "They're just whiners."

Is that the best way to handle things? If the complaints are valid, this amounts to more oppression.

This is why I discuss "the appearance of impropriety". If things "look bad", you invite confusion over what are real problems, which gives the problem-makers all the cover that they need. Hollywood shouldn't even look like it might be biased. Otherwise the perpetrators of bias get to say "They're just whiners" and continue biasing away.

Anyway, I assume people in Hollywood know more about it that you or I. I also presume that claims of bias are based on a lot more than the Oscar nominees, and that the Oscars are just a way to bring attention to the larger issue.

I leave with this quote on why it matters:

I know some people ask why does it matter if anyone from your race or ethnicity is nominated for an Oscar, or aren't there more important issues to focus on? I think Will Smith summed it up best when he announced his boycott of this year's Academy Awards: "This is about children that are going to sit down and they're going to watch the show and they're not going to see themselves represented."

The message to children of color when they see an all-white Oscar nomination list is that you don't belong in show business. And considering how the entertainment media holds such an important place in American culture, on some level, the lack of diversity sends a message: that your race or ethnicity doesn't belong or is not as valuable as white Americans.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

A more insidious problem is campaigns to denigrate people who dare to claim oppression. These people don't demonstrate that there is no oppression; they declare there is none, work backwards, and undermine the credibility of people who speak up. "They're just whiners."

Claiming oppression does not equate to the existence of actual oppression. If any such claim were true then the claims of preppers about FEMA camps and the imminent government takeover would also be true (and those people are typically fringe loons).

Peter asks the correct question: are there black actors and/directors who are being overlooked who should not be? Truthfully, I don't know--I don't watch a lot of movies and Hollywood produces a lot of movies in any given year. Let us presume for the sake of argument that there are, though. This would mean that the problem lies with the people who are nominating actors and directors for awards and with the people who make the actual choices.

Does Will Smith think young people actually watch the Academy Awards, though? Really? I suspect he does but then he does live inside Hollywood (not physically, but that is his world) and so he thinks the rest of us care about such things, as well. In reality, those of us not in Hollywood have real concerns on our plates such as crumbling schools in Detroit, border insecurity, weakened job prospects in the energy industry, etc.

[wayfriend]

Claiming oppression does not equate to the existence of actual oppression.

No, but claiming that claims are false doesn't make the claims false either. I don't see any difference in the kinds of assumptions you are making.

But ... is it better to consider claims as possibly true when they may not be? Or is it better to assume claims are false and make it hard for true claims to be heard? Will not false claims be found out without the need to prejudge them? Do we not risk true claims being overlooked when instant prejudgement damns them?

Some assumptions are more an opponent of justice than others are.

So I'm far less worried about complaint's about all white Ocscars, and more worried about complaints of ethic groups wanting things they don't deserve just because they're ethnic.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

But ... is it better to consider claims as possibly true when they may not be? Or is it better to assume claims are false and make it hard for true claims to be heard? Will not false claims be found out without the need to prejudge them? Do we not risk true claims being overlooked when instant prejudgement damns them?

Should we have considered the claim that Obama was not a natural-born United States citizen when the subject was approached back in 2007? Wasn't that all conspiracy theory with no substance to it?

Are claims of reverse discrimination or that affirmative action is just another name for racial quota true?

I have not said that there isn't a problem with the Oscars--there very well may be--but what I have been saying is that just because someone claims something doesn't necessarily make it true. So what we are being left with is that we should consider all claims of racial discrimination or inequity as true then rule them out when the facts prove otherwise, even when the claim is made by whites. Not a problem--I can accept that.

So...how many white or Hispanic people got nominated for BET Awards? If racial equality is our goal shouldn't there be only one awards ceremony covering all movies?

If the current slate of voters is the problem of racial inequality in the Oscars how can we change that system to make it more equitable? Should individual people be allowed to vote for their favorite and the winner is determined based on those votes?

[JIkj fjds j]

If the current slate of voters is the problem of racial inequality in the Oscars how can we change that system to make it more equitable? Should individual people be allowed to vote for their favorite and the winner is determined based on those votes?

Only members of the Academy who are themselves actors vote for best actor. What then could be more equitable! If by individuals you mean non-members, they can't vote, or it wouldn't be the Academy Awards.

Actually, I gave up believing in equality at the Oscars many years ago, when E.T. lost out to Ghandi. That little alien gave a much better performance, without doubt.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Actually, I gave up believing in equality at the Oscars many years ago, when E.T. lost out to Ghandi. That little alien gave a much better performance, without doubt.

Exactly. Ghandi didn't become a societal meme--people still know what you mean when you say "phone home" to this day.

I don't even know who or what has been nominated this year since I pay zero attention to the Oscars. The latest Suicide Squad trailer looks pretty good, though.

[I'm Murrin]

Only members of the Academy who are themselves actors vote for best actor. What then could be more equitable! If by individuals you mean non-members, they can't vote, or it wouldn't be the Academy Awards.

The people eligible to vote are 94% white, which hardly seems representative of the acting profession. Note that membership doesn't just require you to have been in qualifying roles, but also to be endorsed by an existing member.

[JIkj fjds j]

The people eligible to vote are 94% white, which hardly seems representative of the acting profession. Note that membership doesn't just require you to have been in qualifying roles, but also to be endorsed by an existing member.

94% is hardly a figure to pin racisim on!

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

It seems to me that the dynamic on this thread is a clash of two mutually antagonistic, but equivalently Americanistic, forms of "what Equality looks like".

But maybe the real crux of the problem lies deeper inasmuch as Equality really doesn't look like anything, since Equality-all-by-its-lonesome (i.e. Equality sans her twin sister, Hierarchy) is simply unreal; a delusive dream; a false god, if you will — the promises of Americanist/Enlightenment civil religion notwithstanding.

Just a thought.