These complaints about lack of black nominees in a year when there were so few noteworthy black performances are disgraceful. It is regrettable that Cheryl Boone Isaacs decided to accept some of the blame for Academy, when the issue is clearly with the studios not releasing films with good roles for minorities this year. I'm similarly annoyed that journalists can't find anything more interesting to cover in the Oscars, other than this angle. My respect for members of the press seems to sink every year.
I went over the statistics over black nominees about a year ago. In the previous decade, I think blacks were around the 10% of nominees in acting categories you'd expect them to be based on their share of the U.S. population. However, when nominated, black actors were much more likely to win than whites. The Academy has a solid history of nominating blacks, it's not plausible that they just turn racist overnight - ironically just after the Academy started a policy of diversifying its membership.
ITALIANO wrote:And every time this issue comes out, I realize - with a certain surprise, I must admit it - that by American standards I am - like Pedro Almodovar and Benicio Del Toro - a man of color...
mlrg wrote:Let me just say that this conversation is becoming quite atrocious and reaching epic proportions up to the point that the Academy's president has to realease a statement that basically is apologising for the nominations. This really shows the level of american culture. There weren’t more diverse nominees this year just by the fact that there weren’t any deserving of a nomination. Period! Get over with it.
Yeah, it's absurd. It's a society with countless problems - including, nobody can deny it, racial problems - and they think they must be solved at the Oscars... It's just idiotic.
And every time this issue comes out, I realize - with a certain surprise, I must admit it - that by American standards I am - like Pedro Almodovar and Benicio Del Toro - a man of color...
Let me just say that this conversation is becoming quite atrocious and reaching epic proportions up to the point that the Academy's president has to realease a statement that basically is apologising for the nominations. This really shows the level of american culture. There weren’t more diverse nominees this year just by the fact that there weren’t any deserving of a nomination. Period! Get over with it.
The Original BJ wrote:But even if you made voters watch 50, that would mean voters would be viewing a far greater cross-section of movies than many undoubtedly are under the current system, and that exposure would surely have an effect on Oscar results. I'm sure some might argue that this is a tall order, but...why? Shouldn't people voting for significant film awards -- some would say the MOST significant film award -- have to expose themselves to more than just the fifteen or so movies that get strong FYC pushes from the major studios?
The problem I see with that is with so many of the films viewed on screeners, how would you enforce it? The only thing I can think of is that, instead of screeners, members would be provided with a free account to an Academy Web site where they could stream movies for free.
People vote for movies with which they identify. That makes the Academy's diversity an issue. However, I think there's one issue that people might not be thinking about and, from a extrapolation stand point is hard to verify, but here goes:
To be an "elder" member of the Academy, you would have to be in your 70, 80s or 90s? That puts people born from 1930 through 1950 in the demographic sweet spot, right? What do people born during those periods have in common? They either grew up in or were influenced by three major historical events: The Great Depression, World War II and the Civil Rights movement. Let's think about some of these actors who may be part of the Academy still: Kirk Douglas, Carol Channing, Carl Reiner, Doris Day, Cicely Tyson, Eva Marie Saint, Hal Holbrook, George Kennedy, Angela Lansbury, Dick Van Dyke, Cloris Leachman, Sidney Poitier, Estelle Parsons, Max Von Sydow, Ed Asner, Bob Newhart, Christopher Plummer, Gene Hackman, Joanne Woodward, Clint Eastwood, Gena Rowlands, Robert Duvall, James Earl Jones, Olympia Dukakis, Rita Moreno, Debbie Reynolds, Joel Grey, Diane Ladd, Ellen Burstyn, Melvin Van Peebles...this list is almost boundless.
Nearly all of these names are either in a minority or are underrepresented on film (blacks, women, gays). Additionally, many of them were outspoken during the Civil Rights era or the blacklist or countless other causes. Sure, there are some members in this list like Duvall and Eastwood who are known Republicans, but that doesn't mean they are ideologically white. These people have tons of friends who are minorities, especially the theatre thespians among them. I find it hard to believe that these people are the problem and Hollywood's general lack of racial diversity isn't.
To contend that this is the Academy's fault is denying the sad state of Hollywood. Just because the Academy tends to represent Hollywood to the world by its awards doesn't mean they are complicit in the diversity issue. And I don't care if a role was written for a black character or if a black character has to play a role, but the diversity of the Academy's nominations in recent years, barring the last two, has been superb. There is no lack of racial diversity among the most visible categories even if there have been two bad years. The Selma issue was almost entirely the fault of a studio fuck up.
Straight Outta Compton and Creed just didn't appeal to the Academy. Beasts of No Nation has the Netflix day-and-date issue weighing it down. And let's be honest, we would have been entirely up in arms over the inclusion of a film like Creed. Them not nominating it or The Danish Girl shows that some progress has already been made regarding the quality of achievements being selected by the Academy. Yes, there could have been some recognition for diverse candidates in these races, but there weren't many and with stiff competition people are going to get left out and that's something we've always had to deal with.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Okri, I take your point about Mad Max with a black cast...but I'd offer up that Beasts of the Southern Wild wasn't typical Oscar-bait at ALL and that still managed top-field nominations.
Your point about other awards shows, though, is very interesting. You brought up the Emmys, and of course the Grammys haven't had much of an issue in recent years honoring a diverse set of winners. And goodness, this year's Tonys -- with Hamilton and Deaf West's Spring Awakening (a different kind of diversity, but still) set to dominate -- will be pretty much the opposite of #OscarSoWhite. Is AMPAS just more predominately white and male than those other organizations? Or is there a difference between the pool of options those other groups have? (Most likely a combination of both). Because you'd have to imagine the movie equivalent of Hamilton -- something that original that is both a phenomenal critical and commercial success -- wouldn't be sidelined by the Oscars. But of course, that begs the question, what IS the movie equivalent of Hamilton? What was the last movie that captivated critics and audiences in such a dominant way? And does it even seem possible for today's movie industry to produce a phenomenon as singular as Hamilton has been for the stage?
Rob, your statistic about Best Picture nominees starring non-whites who just HAPPEN to be non-white is not irrelevant, but it's hard for me to look at that stat as evidence of something dire for a couple reasons. First of all, half of the Academy's history took place before or during the civil rights era -- I think it's pretty safe to say that was a pretty different time for racial diversity in movies. There were barely any movies with non-white leads at all -- even non-white characters were typically played by white actors -- and the ones that existed usually focused on racial issues. (Although even some early nominees with black leads -- like Lilies of the Field and Sounder -- don't seem any less focused on race than, say, Beasts of the Southern Wild.) But second, and more importantly, I don't know that having black-themed films in which race is completely irrelevant strikes me as the goal filmmakers should be working toward. This is not to say that more parts that could just as easily have gone to a white actor shouldn't start going to more diverse options. They should. But movies as disparate as 12 Years a Slave, Selma, Precious, and Straight Outta Compton tell significant stories about the black experience in America that hadn't been told before -- I don't see why this wouldn't be of major artistic and cultural value.
So here's the question: what should the Academy DO about all of this? They're clearly making a significant attempt to make their membership more diverse already. Some are calling for the removal of "retired" members of the Academy -- I'm in agreement with Mark Harris that that strikes me as unreasonably ageist, as there's nothing about being older/experienced that makes one's taste out of touch. (I also resent that term -- what does "in touch" mean? You think Straight Outta Compton deserved a Best Picture nomination?) New members don't have their taste questioned, why should longtime members? I'm genuinely interested to hear opinions about how best to address this issue, because most of what the Internet seems to be putting forward is "convince them to be less racist," which strikes me as both a reductive accusation and a completely futile goal.
Here's a thought, which I think would improve the quality of nominations overall AND likely improve the diversity of nominations -- voters should be required to watch a certain number of eligible films in order to nominate. I've seen close to 90 movies this year, and I'm a working professional in the industry, so the excuse that there just isn't time for voters to see a ton of movies (especially if you start watching in January instead of waiting until you get your screeners in December) doesn't hold water to me. But even if you made voters watch 50, that would mean voters would be viewing a far greater cross-section of movies than many undoubtedly are under the current system, and that exposure would surely have an effect on Oscar results. I'm sure some might argue that this is a tall order, but...why? Shouldn't people voting for significant film awards -- some would say the MOST significant film award -- have to expose themselves to more than just the fifteen or so movies that get strong FYC pushes from the major studios?
Okri wrote:
I'm not going to pretend that people's arguments against AMPAS are fair. But I'd argue that AMPAS is behind the curve here.
I guess I've always felt AMPAS was born behind the curve, and the thing I've found fascinating in the 50-plus years I've been following it (plus in the earlier history of which I've read) is its often fumbling, frequently short-falling attempts to catch up to it.
My catty Mad Max comment aside, I think you and BJ nailed it. But, to dovetail a little bit into Magilla's comment, when you look at almost any other medium and their major award, the difference is stark.
I mean, compare Straight Outta Compton and Empire. Both are popular successes and got the same level of praise - Empire arguably got lesser reviews. But Empire gets far more awards traction. And it's not because there is nothing on television, either. It's definitely selective to pick this year/last year and cite a trend. But say you go back to 2013 with the three black nominees. I can find three black nominees in a single acting category at last year's emmys (Best Supporting Actor/Comedy). Twice (Best Leading Actress, movie/miniseries). Take a look at the Critics Choice Awards for television. There is not a single acting category that is all white. Seriously. Or jump back to last year's emmys. Best show honours went to Veep, Olive Kitteridge, Bessie and Game of Thrones. GoT is undeniably guy heavy (though it got three actresses nominated), but the other three are female lead drama/comedies. Out of eight films nominated, three are about women and three women got nominated from those best picture nominees (one arguably got nominated because she stood out as the only woman)
How is television ahead of the curb here?
If we jump to the Tonys, it gets more embarrassing.
Big Magilla wrote:No, as others have said it's all about the roles. Look at the Globes, Critics Choice Awards and other organizations that award both film and TV. You see plenty of minority nominees and winners in the TV categories where there are more opportunities for good roles.
Maybe it's people over 65 who ought to protest the Oscar nominations. Sure, we got Charlotte Rampling and Sylvester Stallone, but where were the nominations for Michael Caine,Tom Courtenay, Ian McKellen, Maggie Smith, Lily Tomlin, Harvey Keitel, Jane Fonda and Helen Mirren, all of whom were in the conversation this year?
Magilla, there are plenty of arguments to make, but "old white males have it so rough" when it comes to the oscars... not one of them.
Okri wrote:
I'm not going to pretend that people's arguments against AMPAS are fair. But I'd argue that AMPAS is behind the curve here.
I guess I've always felt AMPAS was born behind the curve, and the thing I've found fascinating in the 50-plus years I've been following it (plus in the earlier history of which I've read) is its often fumbling, frequently short-falling attempts to catch up to it.
Big Magilla wrote:No, as others have said it's all about the roles. Look at the Globes, Critics Choice Awards and other organizations that award both film and TV. You see plenty of minority nominees and winners in the TV categories where there are more opportunities for good roles.
Maybe it's people over 65 who ought to protest the Oscar nominations. Sure, we got Charlotte Rampling and Sylvester Stallone, but where were the nominations for Michael Caine,Tom Courtenay, Ian McKellen, Maggie Smith, Lily Tomlin, Harvey Keitel, Jane Fonda and Helen Mirren, all of whom were in the conversation this year?
Magilla, there are plenty of arguments to make, but "old white males have it so rough" when it comes to the oscars... not one of them.
I appreciate the time and thoughtfulness that have gone into some of the responses. I do think the blame lies more with the casting directors, movie directors, studios, and producers than it lies with the Academy. There clearly were no movies with AA leads that warranted nomination outside of SoC, but even that wasn't a HUGE snub.
The bigger problem for me is that, despite the big list provided by you, there is a clear imbalance racially on BP nominations. If you remove movies that REQUIRE a black lead (movies that deal with racism/civil rights/slaver, or biographies/biopics), there are a grand total of three best picture nominations in the history of the academy that feature a black lead. Three. Beasts of the Southern Wild, Shawshank Redemption, and Pulp Fiction. The first two of those are questionable in terms of not requiring a black lead, and in the third, the black lead was actually considered supporting in nominations. And that is the whole list, unless I'm missing something. Think about that. Unless the role called specifically for a black person, as many as three and as few as zero movies with a black lead have ever been nominated for an Oscar. That should not be dismissed. It just shouldn't.
Tee, I hear loud and clear your advice to me about sinking in here instead of just dumping a link to my podcast and moving on. Clearly, I understand how that would generate some eye rolls and get annoying quickly. I do plan to participate in more discussion in the coming weeks/months.
I only recently found this message board, as it coincided with me starting my podcast. I've been searching for avenues to get the word out. I like doing the podcast, but I am really not inclined to do it if no one is listening to it. I think, if anybody here is familiar with/plays HSX.com, it is something they would enjoy year round, and if they're into Oscar talk, they'd enjoy it as well, particularly from the summer on when buzz picks up.
In short, I'll being around more and more, and post more and more, but I'll probably be linking my podcast when I feel it's relevant to do so, unless I'm informed that violates some rules here, at which point I'll obviously acquiesce.
Big Magilla wrote:This year we have The Martian with a very diverse cast even if the hero is a middle-aged white guy.
At the same time, the movie recast the two Indian characters into black (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and white (Mackenzie Davis).
I heard Kate Mara's character was supposed to be Asian. To be fair, Chiwetel Ejiofor mentions one of his parents was Hindu so he's supposed to be part Indian.
No, as others have said it's all about the roles. Look at the Globes, Critics Choice Awards and other organizations that award both film and TV. You see plenty of minority nominees and winners in the TV categories where there are more opportunities for good roles.
Maybe it's people over 65 who ought to protest the Oscar nominations. Sure, we got Charlotte Rampling and Sylvester Stallone, but where were the nominations for Michael Caine,Tom Courtenay, Ian McKellen, Maggie Smith, Lily Tomlin, Harvey Keitel, Jane Fonda and Helen Mirren, all of whom were in the conversation this year?
