Reasons/blame for Whiteout 2?

For the films of 2015
Post Reply
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: Reasons/blame for Whiteout 2?

Post by flipp525 »

I'm surprised that Amy Pascal's racist emails haven't re-emerged during this whole Oscar diversity debate.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Reasons/blame for Whiteout 2?

Post by Greg »

I was flipping through TV and saw a funny joke about #OscarsSoWhite. The Academy should have Steve Harvey present Best Picture. That way, Straight Outta Compton could win the Oscar.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Reasons/blame for Whiteout 2?

Post by Mister Tee »

The Original BJ wrote:
Okri wrote:
Big Magilla wrote: You did not consider the possible consequences of this new rule, or submit a proposal to us for a vote before making this hasty and ill-conceived change to the membership status of many of us who will doubtless be contacting you about it. You'd rather blow with the political wind and put the blame for a publicity fiasco on your membership rather than on the voting process for the top Oscar nominations. Let the best director, best actor and best actress be nominated by the general membership rather than just one branch, just as best picture is, and the issue would cease to be a problem. Did no one ever consider that?
Did ANYONE think of that? Would the issue really cease to be a problem? Why just the leading acting categories?
I'd wager to bet the problem would get WORSE. My hunch is that there is WAY more diversity in the actors branch than, say, the cinematographers or composers branch (to cite two of the most historically crony-ish branches.)
I'd be guessing the visual effects branch -- which I just read is an astonishing 400 strong, about 6% of the membership -- doesn't have more than token non-white-male representation, either.

There's been an enormous amount of stupidity spilled on this subject over the past week, but that suggestion may be the most fact-free I've heard in the entire discussion.
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Reasons/blame for Whiteout 2?

Post by The Original BJ »

Okri wrote:
Big Magilla wrote: You did not consider the possible consequences of this new rule, or submit a proposal to us for a vote before making this hasty and ill-conceived change to the membership status of many of us who will doubtless be contacting you about it. You'd rather blow with the political wind and put the blame for a publicity fiasco on your membership rather than on the voting process for the top Oscar nominations. Let the best director, best actor and best actress be nominated by the general membership rather than just one branch, just as best picture is, and the issue would cease to be a problem. Did no one ever consider that?
Did ANYONE think of that? Would the issue really cease to be a problem? Why just the leading acting categories?
I'd wager to bet the problem would get WORSE. My hunch is that there is WAY more diversity in the actors branch than, say, the cinematographers or composers branch (to cite two of the most historically crony-ish branches.)
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Reasons/blame for Whiteout 2?

Post by Okri »

Big Magilla wrote: You did not consider the possible consequences of this new rule, or submit a proposal to us for a vote before making this hasty and ill-conceived change to the membership status of many of us who will doubtless be contacting you about it. You'd rather blow with the political wind and put the blame for a publicity fiasco on your membership rather than on the voting process for the top Oscar nominations. Let the best director, best actor and best actress be nominated by the general membership rather than just one branch, just as best picture is, and the issue would cease to be a problem. Did no one ever consider that?
Did ANYONE think of that? Would the issue really cease to be a problem? Why just the leading acting categories?
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19317
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Reasons/blame for Whiteout 2?

Post by Big Magilla »

Oscar Voter to Academy: I'm "No Longer Proud to Be a Member of This Organization"

Nancy Beiman, a member of the Academy's short films and feature animation branch, weighs in on the #OscarsSoWhite controversy and the response to it.

When I was voted into the Academy, my sponsor specifically stated that "we not only have too few animators in this club, we have too few female animators." (At the time, I was one of only three female supervising animators at Disney.) Now I am one of the first people who will be affected by this unfair law, which discriminates against animators and women.

No one at the Academy offered to change the voting rules when Geena Davis pointed out in a study of female representation in film jobs in 2012 that only 7 percent of the "creatives" (non-acting) working in the film industry are female. But they changed the rules in one day for every category when one actor and one director claimed that the Oscar nomination process was racist.

To whom it may concern:

I have been a professional animator for 37 years and a dues-paying member of AMPAS for 20 years. For 10 of those years I was one of the very, very few directing animators in Hollywood who happened to be female. Since 2005, I've been working in related fields (teaching, writing) and freelancing on films that went into turnaround or were canceled, so I did not receive screen credit. I've been a script doctor, character designer and storyboard artist on two unproduced theatrical pictures and also worked on one live-action documentary.

You now announce, in the name of "diversity," that I am no longer eligible for a voting membership in your organization, since for the past 10 years I have not actively worked in feature motion pictures — and "activity" is not defined. It apparently means, credited on completed American feature films.

May I point out that as one of the female members in the short films and feature animation branch, I am also a minority? Am I not contributing to the "diversity" of this organization? Women are shockingly under-represented in craft, technical and directorial nominations every year. Since when is it permissible to discriminate against one minority to right a perceived wrong to another?

And why are you "conducting a worldwide search for female and minority member candidates" while discriminating against your current membership? What does my résumé, or that of any other member of AMPAS, have to do with who is nominated for Oscars? Nothing. The membership's experience is not the problem. The nominating system is flawed, but the blame is put on older members rather than the voting process.

For the past decade, I've been paying full membership dues while being unable, due to my geographic location [in Canada], to attend any of the membership events or screenings in Los Angeles or New York. The dues actually went up this year. I paid them without complaint since I was finally able to vote again in my own category, thanks to the streaming videos of the animation nominees. But this is apparently the last time that I will be able to do it thanks to this unfair rule.

I apparently do not matter to this organization, my experience and reputation mean nothing to you, my "diversity" doesn't count for anything. But my checks are still good. And, after this insult, I don't think that you will be receiving any more.

You did not consider the possible consequences of this new rule, or submit a proposal to us for a vote before making this hasty and ill-conceived change to the membership status of many of us who will doubtless be contacting you about it. You'd rather blow with the political wind and put the blame for a publicity fiasco on your membership rather than on the voting process for the top Oscar nominations. Let the best director, best actor and best actress be nominated by the general membership rather than just one branch, just as best picture is, and the issue would cease to be a problem. Did no one ever consider that?

If you do not repeal this foolish and ill-conceived rule repealing my full-membership status for mere political expedience, I will not be renewing my membership in AMPAS next year. I am no longer proud to be a member of this organization. I will not accept — or pay dues for — an "emeritus" status that provides me with no benefits whatever. The only benefit I currently receive from the Academy is the ability to vote for the Oscars. I resent being discriminated against in this matter. I've had enough of that in my career. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Very truly yours,

Nancy Beiman,
Short films and feature animation branch
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Reasons/blame for Whiteout 2?

Post by Okri »

Jeff Wells agrees, referring to this situation as "political terror" and to McCarthyism.
User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 4453
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Reasons/blame for Whiteout 2?

Post by Precious Doll »

Now Obama (and Hilary) weighs in: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/ja ... wards-2016

I am starting to think I may make 2015 Oscar competition my last (i.e. don't bother reading anything on them in the future and only see the few films that actually interest me). It's probably inevitable anyway with the on-going demise of local video shops.
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
Heksagon
Adjunct
Posts: 1229
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:39 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Reasons/blame for Whiteout 2?

Post by Heksagon »

If you require people to see all (or even most of) the films eligible for nomination, you're stuck with a situation where only the pensioners have the time for that. Wasn't that a serious problem with the Foreign Language category in the past?
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Reasons/blame for Whiteout 2?

Post by OscarGuy »

Lurie's suggestion was more about picking a small number from each branch, rather than letting the entire branch choose, as is done now; and he would suggest having a diverse range of ages on each committee, etc. My issue is that as the Spirit Awards showcased this year and the Emmys and SAG Awards regular showcase, having small nominating committees often leads to bias of one kind or another. Room wasn't nominated for Best Picture at the Spirit Awards. Why wasn't it? It was certainly acclaimed enough? They nominated Brie Larson, so they had obviously seen it. SAG's nominations are often a bit wonky and the Emmys for years omitted Tatiana Maslany despite her acclaim, then suddenly they realized "oh, hey, we should recognize her." The same thing will happen with the Academy and the Academy won't like the results.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Reasons/blame for Whiteout 2?

Post by The Original BJ »

jack wrote: The director Rod Lurie suggested something that might be worth looking into (which again, may have been reported on here) where the Academy selects a portion of it's membership and gives them a category, watch all the possible contenders and chose the nominees. Once chosen the entire membership votes on the winner. That might be worth a try.
Isn't this exactly how it's already done, though?
jack
Assistant
Posts: 897
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 4:39 pm
Location: Cape Breton, Nova Scotia

Re: Reasons/blame for Whiteout 2?

Post by jack »

This has no doubt been posted earlier, but Viola Davis point was stop on. If the studios/industry start making more films with black actors then this would be a moot point. That doesn't necessarily mean films about black people. The casting point that was brought up earlier was a very good one. There does't have to be a justifiable reason to cast a black actor in a role where customarily you would cast a white actor. Matt Damon's role in The Martian could have been played by countless actors. Sandra Bullock's in Gravity also. The list could on and on and on.

I don't think a change in the Academy's membership will make much of a difference. If the ratio of performances from white actors and black actors continues to lean toward white actors it won't matter who much the Academy tries to diversify. The last thing anyone here wants is for the Academy to start employing affirmative action when considering its nominees.

The director Rod Lurie suggested something that might be worth looking into (which again, may have been reported on here) where the Academy selects a portion of it's membership and gives them a category, watch all the possible contenders and chose the nominees. Once chosen the entire membership votes on the winner. That might be worth a try.
Jefforey Smith
Graduate
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Lexington, Kentucky

Re: Reasons/blame for Whiteout 2?

Post by Jefforey Smith »

Home & Family had a discussion about this today. I found it illuminating & balanced. A spectrum of viewpoints was elucidated.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19317
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Reasons/blame for Whiteout 2?

Post by Big Magilla »

Good article from Deadline Hollywood by Peter Bart and Mike Fleming Jr. that starts out with this:

BART: The Academy’s “reforms” to foster diversity are basically PR moves, which befits the fact that its President is a PR woman. Bring it all down to reality, and here’s what we can expect: In changing voting procedures, every move may trigger a contrary impact. From the PR standpoint, it sounds smart to remove older, inactive voters from the rolls. But here’s the catch: In many cases the older retired voters are the most conscientious about viewing the contenders (the younger ones are too busy making movies around the world). Further, the members who became Academy members in the ‘60s and ‘70s era tended to be liberals, even activists. The Academy may thus be cutting out the voters who’d be most favorably disposed to change and diversity.

FLEMING: This has so overwhelmed the proceedings that it has obscured something interesting. We are in the final run of the most exciting and wide open Best Picture race I can recall in all my years of covering Hollywood. After The Big Short won the PGA Award, you would have to say that at least five of the nominated films have a real shot at winning. When is that last time that happened? Are we discussing the journalistic procedural Spotlight, or the natural light and landscapes of The Revenant, the audacity of Mad Max: Fury Road, the courage of Room, the period gorgeousness of Brooklyn, the Cold War gamesmanship of Bridge Of Spies or Ridley Scott’s 3D mastery in The Martian? No. The narrative has become about painting the Academy and its voters as racists — unfairly, in my opinion.

The full article is here:

http://deadline.com/2016/01/oscar-diver ... 201690293/
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: Reasons/blame for Whiteout 2?

Post by ITALIANO »

Okri wrote:Italiano, because the Nobel Prizes are both truly international and based on more objective standards, particularly in the sciences, I have more faith in their decisions. When you take a look at their most recent slate, for example, you'll see what I mean.
Oh that... You have no idea how subjectove the Nobel prize can be - even when it comes to the scientific awards! But what I meant is - they'd never change their membership based on race or sex, or, as it seems now the case with the Academy, age.
Post Reply

Return to “88th Nominations and Winners”