Kevin's Watch

+JMJ+

peter wrote:I think for me the problem is that for years prior to the accusations of exclusivity and racism etc, the Oscars were just such....fun! It was a big thing, waiting for the nominations, arguing with my friends about who would win, who should win, why the opinions of the Board were crap and why Spielberg never got one for 'Close encounters'. This has [possibly quite rightly - I don't know], taken something [that seemed] innocent away. It's just as though everything has to be torn down.

Maybe everything has to be torn down because it's not "perfect"?

I think that one denizen of a certain Creche might have some insight into the passion behind that movement.

sgt.null wrote:then they could get it right and feel good about themselves.

Straw man arguments like that, repeated in order to defame and discredit minority actors, only demonstrates the medacity that minority actors face. It sounds like a perfect slam, which I guess is all people want to do, but to anyone who thinks, you're not demonstrating what you think you are.

Let's not ask if we need a checklist.

Let's ask why minority actors don't get a fair shake without one.

wayfriend wrote:
Let's ask why minority actors don't get a fair shake without one.

A question that begs the question. You assume the very issue which is up for debate, asking for an explanation to something that hasn't yet been shown to be true. If you're going to measure whether minority actors 'get a fair shake' simply by the numbers of black actors who win, then you're conflating opportunity (i.e. 'getting a fair shake') with outcomes. Without getting inside the heads of every single voting member, you have no evidence whatsoever that minority actors aren't getting a fair shake. All you have is assumption and accusation.

Groundless accusations of racism are among the more pernicious forms of ad hominem attacks.

I don't think it's possible, by definition, for accusations of systemic racism to be ad hominem? I mean, this isn't about a person.

I'm Murrin wrote:I don't think it's possible, by definition, for accusations of systemic racism to be ad hominem? I mean, this isn't about a person.

(I'm arguing that people are making straw man arguments. So the response is naturally going to say I am arguing that they are racist. Get it?)

wayfriend wrote:

I'm Murrin wrote:I don't think it's possible, by definition, for accusations of systemic racism to be ad hominem? I mean, this isn't about a person.

(I'm arguing that people are making straw man arguments. So the response is naturally going to say I am arguing that they are racist. Get it?)

Of course it's all about you.

The Oscars don't matter. Black actors are getting work and notoriety. No one watches the films that are nominated or win; the box office is the test of talent and popularity.

Arguing that a small group of Hollywood elites don't give black artists a fair shake isn't about racism? It's not an accusation that those people are racists? Why would those voting members of the Academy not give black people a fair shake (so the allegation goes) if they're not racists? That's what racisms is: discriminating against a group based on skin color.

It doesn't matter if one adds the word "systemic," we're still talking about specific people. It's not a system that decides who wins, it's people. And the implication here is that those people racists. Are we now going to pretend that not what this is about?

Posting this because it goes towards debunking yet another strawman argument that perceived inequities are being argued based solely on the Academy nomination results and not from years of personal experiences in the industry.

Hollywood is a 'white boy's club,' says study

I would think that if the problem wasn't real, you could argue it based on facts and not based on misrepresentations.

Z, you're confusing systemic racism for personal bigotry.

Cail wrote: The Oscars don't matter. Black actors are getting work and notoriety. No one watches the films that are nominated or win; the box office is the test of talent and popularity.

Exactly. Here are the box office results for 2015. What do we see? Well, The Force Awakens topped everything (obviously) with $926 million (domestic numbers only) then Jurassic World ($652 million), Age of Ultron ($459 million), Inside Out ($356 million), Furious 7 ($353 million), Minions ($336 million), Hunger Games IV ($281 million), The Martian ($228 million), Cinderella ($201 million--and I didn't even know this was a movie that got released last year), and Spectre ($199 million) were the top 10.

If we look at the winners from the Oscars...hrm....The Revenant (Leonardo finally won) came in at 15th place in the box office results ($170 million), Bridge of Spies at 42nd, The Room didn't break the top 100, neither did The Danish Girl, Inside Out made it to the top 10, Spotlight (winner for best picture) found itself in 69th place with only $39 million...and opened in only 5 theaters...what? Anyway...oh, look at that--Fury Road won Best Costume Design (which is funny when you think about it) but also Editing...and Production Design...and Makeup/Hairstyling...and Sound Editing...and Sound Mixing. Clearly, Fury Road was the best picture of 2015 since it won the most awards *laugh*.

In other words, what a farce!

The films tend to go back into theatres for a while before and after the Oscars, and see an uptick in viewers there. The DVDs will sell more because of the nominations. The people who won awards will get more work on more films. The studios will make decisions on future films based on what was successful at the Oscars (yes, of course, box office matters more for this, but this is a factor).

Can anyone honestly say they don't think there are people high up on the decision making chain in film studios who will decide "well, black actors don't win awards, so we'll stick with what works." (That's not all about the hypothetical studio exec being racist; it's about them basing decisions on the outcome of a racist system.)

+JMJ+

I'm Murrin wrote:(That's not all about the hypothetical studio exec being racist; it's about them basing decisions on the outcome of a racist system.)

Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:I am still trying to figure out how Fury Road won Best Makeup/Hairstyling. Charlize Theron's stylist had such a difficult job--bzzt and your're done. Everyone else...just don't wash your hair for two weeks and you'll be fine. Oh, and go jog around to get sweaty then let us throw dust at you--perfect. lolwut I did enjoy the movie, though.

Must have been to appease all the big-name critics who loved it.

It certainly couldn't win for acting or writing.

But this might have helped.

Qoute from above "The box office is the test of talent and popularity."

Is this truly the case? When I go and see a film in a cinema, I have an inkling that it might be 'my kind of film', I have a few reviews and anecdotal accounts that back this up [friends/associates saying " It's really good" etc, and a prompt in that I like the previous work [perhaps] of the actors who participate - but beyond that it's pretty much a leap in the dark, or perhaps put better, a leap of faith that my $20 is going to be well spent. Often, but often I find I have been fooled by 'the hype' and [what I consider to be] the poor taste of the people whose opinion has swayed me away from waiting until the film makes a tv appearance or whatever.

Surely on this basis, 'the box office' is just a reflection of the sucess [or otherwise] of the hype/ad campaign and transitory 'memes' [that horrid word again] taht circulate prior to my making my decision.