Oscar-nominated non-black minority performers
-
99-1100896887
Yes, but of course I was in the ninth grade and, at the time it was a great moment. I treasure it because it was a foreshadow of things to come. And it was funny that the bell rang when it did.
Oh, and Bush has nothing to do with my job or the money I make.
Oh, and Bush has nothing to do with my job or the money I make.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
criddic3 wrote:The school did an interesting thing to help us decide. They had three teachers wear masks of the candidates. I asked the Clinton guy "if you are willing to cheat on your wife, how do we know you won't cheat on the country?" and the end-of-class bell rang on cue. A classic Clintonesque moment I will always treasure.
Only a ninth grader could find that statement either clever or incisive.
criddic3 wrote: So no, I was not born rich, nor am I rich now (I make around $11, 000/year).
Glad to see you're doing so well under the Bush economy.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Another item i missed:
I don't think anyone is born Republican or Democrat. However, I was not born rich, as my mother was a single parent and got little financial help along the way, as I understand it. She worked hard, selling computers mostly and at one time briefly driving a taxi. By doing so, she kept the three of us (myself, my mom and my sister) together through much moving around New York state. Until I was 16, we moved almost every two years (sometimes less) to a new home, new town. Very difficult for me socially, but I found my love of music and movies, reading. i played with the neighborhood kids, but seldom got very close to any of them as far as friendships went. This was a result of moving so much, which caused me to shy away from getting too attached. (and I was also kind of the wierdo, singing Frank Sinatra songs, and being hearing impaired).
My political views began to surface more prominently in about the sixth grade. Reagan had only fairly recently left office and Bush 41 was conducting the first Gulf War about that time. I saw a strong leader, which i liked. I also admired what i knew of Ronald Reagan. Again, strong foreign policy.
In 1992, in the ninth grade, we had a mock-election in which President Bush won (don't remember by how much). My mother was voting for Ross Perot in the real election, although I told her that might only serve to help Bush lose to Clinton. I was right (obviously I voted for Bush in the mock version). The school did an interesting thing to help us decide. They had three teachers wear masks of the candidates. I asked the Clinton guy "if you are willing to cheat on your wife, how do we know you won't cheat on the country?" and the end-of-class bell rang on cue. A classic Clintonesque moment I will always treasure.
[By the way, this was History/Social Studies class, in which I was offered placement in the next year's Honors Class, but I moved over the summer.]
During this time I also struggled with the notion that I was gay. I had limited frame of reference for dealing with this emotion and avoided really dealing head-on with it until years later. So I did not date. Perhaps if we didn't move so much, things would have been different.
My identification as a Republican only grew as the Clinton years passed. Yes, the economy got better and continued strong (it was already picking up as the 1992 election year closed, but it was too late for Bush), but the President's personal and professional evasions/improprieties were perplexing. There were scandals (long lists of horrendous pardons, implications of whitewater, etc.) that seemed far too disturbing to support him as a candidate in 1996. Indeed for his involvement in lying during a civil case, he was impeached by the House of Representatives. Though admittedly a partisan undertaking, his choice to break the law was unmistakably what led to this event. He was acquitted by the Senate in 1999, but by then his lack of personal class had divided his personal/job approval ratings sharply.
Thus, by 2000, it was clearly a time for change. Vice President Al Gore wasn't about to bring that and so, during the Republican Primary I was rooting for then-Governor George W. Bush. He spoke from the heart, seemed poised to bring better personal qualities to the White House and had good ideas/vision for bringing us into the 21st century. We all know what happened then, with the new era brought on by 9/11. And we all know from our constant debates where I stood in the election of 2004.
So no, I was not born rich, nor am I rich now (I make around $11, 000/year). I have not finished college, as personal issues overtook my attention during those years after high school and then moving out on my own shifted priorities. This is an unfinished piece of business for me.
So pampered isn't exactly accurate. My mother saw to it I was fed, had a roof over my head and a warm blanket to sleep in, but we weren't driving around in cadillacs or eating at fancy restaurants every night either.
Criddic, how are you not rich and white? You told me earlier that you were young, born Republican, but not pampered. HOW ARE YOU NOT PAMPERED?
I don't think anyone is born Republican or Democrat. However, I was not born rich, as my mother was a single parent and got little financial help along the way, as I understand it. She worked hard, selling computers mostly and at one time briefly driving a taxi. By doing so, she kept the three of us (myself, my mom and my sister) together through much moving around New York state. Until I was 16, we moved almost every two years (sometimes less) to a new home, new town. Very difficult for me socially, but I found my love of music and movies, reading. i played with the neighborhood kids, but seldom got very close to any of them as far as friendships went. This was a result of moving so much, which caused me to shy away from getting too attached. (and I was also kind of the wierdo, singing Frank Sinatra songs, and being hearing impaired).
My political views began to surface more prominently in about the sixth grade. Reagan had only fairly recently left office and Bush 41 was conducting the first Gulf War about that time. I saw a strong leader, which i liked. I also admired what i knew of Ronald Reagan. Again, strong foreign policy.
In 1992, in the ninth grade, we had a mock-election in which President Bush won (don't remember by how much). My mother was voting for Ross Perot in the real election, although I told her that might only serve to help Bush lose to Clinton. I was right (obviously I voted for Bush in the mock version). The school did an interesting thing to help us decide. They had three teachers wear masks of the candidates. I asked the Clinton guy "if you are willing to cheat on your wife, how do we know you won't cheat on the country?" and the end-of-class bell rang on cue. A classic Clintonesque moment I will always treasure.
[By the way, this was History/Social Studies class, in which I was offered placement in the next year's Honors Class, but I moved over the summer.]
During this time I also struggled with the notion that I was gay. I had limited frame of reference for dealing with this emotion and avoided really dealing head-on with it until years later. So I did not date. Perhaps if we didn't move so much, things would have been different.
My identification as a Republican only grew as the Clinton years passed. Yes, the economy got better and continued strong (it was already picking up as the 1992 election year closed, but it was too late for Bush), but the President's personal and professional evasions/improprieties were perplexing. There were scandals (long lists of horrendous pardons, implications of whitewater, etc.) that seemed far too disturbing to support him as a candidate in 1996. Indeed for his involvement in lying during a civil case, he was impeached by the House of Representatives. Though admittedly a partisan undertaking, his choice to break the law was unmistakably what led to this event. He was acquitted by the Senate in 1999, but by then his lack of personal class had divided his personal/job approval ratings sharply.
Thus, by 2000, it was clearly a time for change. Vice President Al Gore wasn't about to bring that and so, during the Republican Primary I was rooting for then-Governor George W. Bush. He spoke from the heart, seemed poised to bring better personal qualities to the White House and had good ideas/vision for bringing us into the 21st century. We all know what happened then, with the new era brought on by 9/11. And we all know from our constant debates where I stood in the election of 2004.
So no, I was not born rich, nor am I rich now (I make around $11, 000/year). I have not finished college, as personal issues overtook my attention during those years after high school and then moving out on my own shifted priorities. This is an unfinished piece of business for me.
So pampered isn't exactly accurate. My mother saw to it I was fed, had a roof over my head and a warm blanket to sleep in, but we weren't driving around in cadillacs or eating at fancy restaurants every night either.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
HarryGoldfarb
- Adjunct
- Posts: 1071
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:50 pm
- Location: Colombia
- Contact:
criddic3 wrote:A famous person, was it Washington or .. hmm I forget, but he said that you shouldn't just wait around for the good roles. You should seek them out or create them yourselves
That could be Lou Gosset Jr who said something similar short after winning his Oscar for An Officer and a Gentleman: that role wasn't written specifically for a black person and he said something quite like it in an interview a few months after the ceremony...
"If you place an object in a museum, does that make this object a piece of art?" - The Square (2017)
-
Johnny Guitar
- Assistant
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:14 pm
- Location: Chicago
If a black actor doesn't get a role, but a white actor does, chances are it wasn't necessarily because he is black. He just might not have been what the casting directors or directors and producers have in mind for the role.
I'll tell it to you straight: your conception of racism is on the same level as an eight-year-old's. If you knew anything about racism other than what you heard from your family and peers growing up and what you read in your newspaper editorials, you'd realize that racism is largely and subtly institutionalized and exists invisibly. It is entirely feasible for a black actor to be turned down for a role because of racism, even if none of the casting agents or filmmakers is racist in any conscious sense. Racism is something that appears in our society and makes us act in ways we usually aren't aware of, and that includes the valuation of white actors over black ones. Why isn't Morgan Freeman ever cast as a lead (while white actors his age are), for instance? Why are all-black films specialty movies that play in black (oh, sorry, "urban") neighborhoods, while films with Irish or Italian (or even Greek) flavors somehow mainstream? Why is it that Denzel Washington and Halle Berry are considered "advances" when both of them are entirely non-threatening presences who don't do much to challenge our notions of race and racism? Don't tell me that things work out this way because of "quality" ...
In today's world, you can't expect to be picked for a job or get better grades just because you represent a particular race or creed. It just isn't fair.
It's also not fair that non-whites had to put up with such awful circumstances. (And it was emphatically non-whites: when the Irish, Italians, and Eastern Europeans immigrated to America in hordes in the 19th century, they were also considered non-white.) So we have two things that might not be fair. But Criddic, don't bring up ideas of fairness as if they're some objective pillar for you and other conservatives to lean on. A lot of contemporary thinkers would argue that the specific ideas of a meritocracy that decide who is "most qualified" are based on a very Eurocentric worldview, one that is subtly racist because it is prohibitive towards non-whites who don't assimilate as rapidly and cheerfully.
Edited By Big Magilla on 1100931268
I'll tell it to you straight: your conception of racism is on the same level as an eight-year-old's. If you knew anything about racism other than what you heard from your family and peers growing up and what you read in your newspaper editorials, you'd realize that racism is largely and subtly institutionalized and exists invisibly. It is entirely feasible for a black actor to be turned down for a role because of racism, even if none of the casting agents or filmmakers is racist in any conscious sense. Racism is something that appears in our society and makes us act in ways we usually aren't aware of, and that includes the valuation of white actors over black ones. Why isn't Morgan Freeman ever cast as a lead (while white actors his age are), for instance? Why are all-black films specialty movies that play in black (oh, sorry, "urban") neighborhoods, while films with Irish or Italian (or even Greek) flavors somehow mainstream? Why is it that Denzel Washington and Halle Berry are considered "advances" when both of them are entirely non-threatening presences who don't do much to challenge our notions of race and racism? Don't tell me that things work out this way because of "quality" ...
In today's world, you can't expect to be picked for a job or get better grades just because you represent a particular race or creed. It just isn't fair.
It's also not fair that non-whites had to put up with such awful circumstances. (And it was emphatically non-whites: when the Irish, Italians, and Eastern Europeans immigrated to America in hordes in the 19th century, they were also considered non-white.) So we have two things that might not be fair. But Criddic, don't bring up ideas of fairness as if they're some objective pillar for you and other conservatives to lean on. A lot of contemporary thinkers would argue that the specific ideas of a meritocracy that decide who is "most qualified" are based on a very Eurocentric worldview, one that is subtly racist because it is prohibitive towards non-whites who don't assimilate as rapidly and cheerfully.
Edited By Big Magilla on 1100931268
In the 1950's or sixties, yes Chris1, that might be true. But in 2003 America, there is no reason to carry on that chip-on-the-shoulder, carry-the-burdon-of-your-ancesters mentality. If a black actor doesn't get a role, but a white actor does, chances are it wasn't necessarily because he is black. He just might not have been what the casting directors or directors and producers have in mind for the role.
There are several black directors and writers out there like Kasi Lemmons, Spike Lee and the Wayons Brothers who are trying to provide various roles for black and minority performers. However, I do think that there should be a wider view for finding an actor to fill a role.
In today's world, you can't expect to be picked for a job or get better grades just because you represent a particular race or creed. It just isn't fair. Affirmative Action was begun in the seventies to rectify years of discrimatory activity in the work place. I think that in 2003, it's becoming more of an easy-pass that people don't want to give up because they are afraid to do it on their own. "Hey I'm a minority. Give me twenty points to get a head start on the white students, because --gasp!-- two hundred years ago Southern American States championed slavery." Even if you consider the trials and pains of the civil rights movement of the 1940's through the sixties, there has been significant change in the way teachers and employers view race in this country. You can't be turned away just because you're black or gay or hearing impaired, but you should also not be chosen BECAUSE you are those things either. Unless you are qualified for the job, you shouldn't be considered for it. If you are a bad actor but happen to be Asian, should I then hire you over a good actor who is white just to show that I'm not prejudiced? Should I give you a 20 point head start to ease any guilt the white race might feel for treating African Americans so wrongly in the past?
The answer is no. I shouldn't. I've never felt any prejusice toward anyone on the basis of race, creed or sexuality. My family has never been involved in racist attitudes and my ancesters come from Ireland and Germany, long after the Civil War had ended. Am I to take the blame for what others did? Should a white person whose ancesters did partake in such cruelties be made to pay for their deeds? Should a black person bare the burden of his ancester's suffering? Should a Jewish teenager carry the same hurts his grandparents endured during the Holocaust? Should all of these people hate each other because of events they had no involvment in?
And, finally, should anyone benefit from the suffering of the past?
I think our society has changed enough to warrant a new lease of life for our collective peoples. Generations have past and, while there is still prejudice in the world, I believe that there are enough rational people in the newer generations who can see a clearer future for themselves than those that are bearing old wounds.
Edited By Big Magilla on 1100931273
There are several black directors and writers out there like Kasi Lemmons, Spike Lee and the Wayons Brothers who are trying to provide various roles for black and minority performers. However, I do think that there should be a wider view for finding an actor to fill a role.
In today's world, you can't expect to be picked for a job or get better grades just because you represent a particular race or creed. It just isn't fair. Affirmative Action was begun in the seventies to rectify years of discrimatory activity in the work place. I think that in 2003, it's becoming more of an easy-pass that people don't want to give up because they are afraid to do it on their own. "Hey I'm a minority. Give me twenty points to get a head start on the white students, because --gasp!-- two hundred years ago Southern American States championed slavery." Even if you consider the trials and pains of the civil rights movement of the 1940's through the sixties, there has been significant change in the way teachers and employers view race in this country. You can't be turned away just because you're black or gay or hearing impaired, but you should also not be chosen BECAUSE you are those things either. Unless you are qualified for the job, you shouldn't be considered for it. If you are a bad actor but happen to be Asian, should I then hire you over a good actor who is white just to show that I'm not prejudiced? Should I give you a 20 point head start to ease any guilt the white race might feel for treating African Americans so wrongly in the past?
The answer is no. I shouldn't. I've never felt any prejusice toward anyone on the basis of race, creed or sexuality. My family has never been involved in racist attitudes and my ancesters come from Ireland and Germany, long after the Civil War had ended. Am I to take the blame for what others did? Should a white person whose ancesters did partake in such cruelties be made to pay for their deeds? Should a black person bare the burden of his ancester's suffering? Should a Jewish teenager carry the same hurts his grandparents endured during the Holocaust? Should all of these people hate each other because of events they had no involvment in?
And, finally, should anyone benefit from the suffering of the past?
I think our society has changed enough to warrant a new lease of life for our collective peoples. Generations have past and, while there is still prejudice in the world, I believe that there are enough rational people in the newer generations who can see a clearer future for themselves than those that are bearing old wounds.
Edited By Big Magilla on 1100931273
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
My God, how narrow minded and ignorant it is possible to be?
Why should a minority person have advantages (like affirmative action) because of his ethnicity? Because in 99.9% of all cases he or she would have had social and cultural disadvantages since the day they were born. If a rich,white person scores 5% better in a test than a poor, black person don't you think they would at LEAST be level if they had the same oppurtunities since birth? I mean, think about it!
I agree with rain Bard that this is not the place to discuss affirmative action, and I apologise, but I just had to get that out of my system. I also think that it is relevant to movies and the Oscars. Now I take a great interest in the Awards, its mystique and tradition. I love the shallow thing! But it's greatest moment for me will always be when Eddie Murphy went on stage a few years ago (can't remember the excact year, 88-89?) and pointed out the Academy's and Hollywood record of ignoring minorities (especially blacks).
It is not just the obvious snubs for nominations (that's way too many too mention, Spike Lee and Malcolm X for picture is two of the most shocking in my mind) its the lack of roles period. The American film industry is runned almost entirely by white people and movies are made mostly for white audiences, as rain Bard points out. If half of Hollywood producers and Academy members were black, i think it is safe to say that the number of minority nominees would rise accordingly. How too get minority person in high positions? Being given the same chances as whites to gain high quality education would certainly help. Hollywood is racist. Maybe not soo much individually now a days, but its definitely institutionally racist. This is my point. It won't change a thing if a black (or other minority actors) wins an Oscar every year for twenty years, if minorities do not get a much larger influence in the running of the entire film industry.
Edited By Big Magilla on 1100931277
Why should a minority person have advantages (like affirmative action) because of his ethnicity? Because in 99.9% of all cases he or she would have had social and cultural disadvantages since the day they were born. If a rich,white person scores 5% better in a test than a poor, black person don't you think they would at LEAST be level if they had the same oppurtunities since birth? I mean, think about it!
I agree with rain Bard that this is not the place to discuss affirmative action, and I apologise, but I just had to get that out of my system. I also think that it is relevant to movies and the Oscars. Now I take a great interest in the Awards, its mystique and tradition. I love the shallow thing! But it's greatest moment for me will always be when Eddie Murphy went on stage a few years ago (can't remember the excact year, 88-89?) and pointed out the Academy's and Hollywood record of ignoring minorities (especially blacks).
It is not just the obvious snubs for nominations (that's way too many too mention, Spike Lee and Malcolm X for picture is two of the most shocking in my mind) its the lack of roles period. The American film industry is runned almost entirely by white people and movies are made mostly for white audiences, as rain Bard points out. If half of Hollywood producers and Academy members were black, i think it is safe to say that the number of minority nominees would rise accordingly. How too get minority person in high positions? Being given the same chances as whites to gain high quality education would certainly help. Hollywood is racist. Maybe not soo much individually now a days, but its definitely institutionally racist. This is my point. It won't change a thing if a black (or other minority actors) wins an Oscar every year for twenty years, if minorities do not get a much larger influence in the running of the entire film industry.
Edited By Big Magilla on 1100931277
It's not a good analogy.
I'm not going to debate the merits of affirmative action here.
But the fact that there are few decent minority roles in Hollywood has nothing to do with quality of actors, and everything to do with the kinds of stories being told. This is not about giving minority actors a boost; its about giving voice to stories that are too often overlooked. When there are few good roles for minorities its a sign that Hollywood writers, producers and directors want to give the public films about white people in white enclaves with white concerns (it's embarassing how many romantic comedies are set in multicultural San Francisco but have barely any non-white faces among the cast- including the extras. I've heard New Yorkers and Angelinos voice similar complaints.) When there ARE good roles it will be a sign that the storytellers in Hollywood have grown less provincial. Considering that the US film industry uses strongarm techniques to remain by far the largest film exporter in the world, I think it should at least try to take a better look at films that are not just from the white American perspective.
I remember someone complaining about racism in "Lord of the Rings" once because all the actors were white. I don't think a film made up entirely of whites is racist if it makes sense for the kind of story being told. What I do think is racist is that Hollywood would never dream of making a large-budget fantasy film based on African or Asian rather than European mythology.
Edited By Big Magilla on 1100931284
I'm not going to debate the merits of affirmative action here.
But the fact that there are few decent minority roles in Hollywood has nothing to do with quality of actors, and everything to do with the kinds of stories being told. This is not about giving minority actors a boost; its about giving voice to stories that are too often overlooked. When there are few good roles for minorities its a sign that Hollywood writers, producers and directors want to give the public films about white people in white enclaves with white concerns (it's embarassing how many romantic comedies are set in multicultural San Francisco but have barely any non-white faces among the cast- including the extras. I've heard New Yorkers and Angelinos voice similar complaints.) When there ARE good roles it will be a sign that the storytellers in Hollywood have grown less provincial. Considering that the US film industry uses strongarm techniques to remain by far the largest film exporter in the world, I think it should at least try to take a better look at films that are not just from the white American perspective.
I remember someone complaining about racism in "Lord of the Rings" once because all the actors were white. I don't think a film made up entirely of whites is racist if it makes sense for the kind of story being told. What I do think is racist is that Hollywood would never dream of making a large-budget fantasy film based on African or Asian rather than European mythology.
Edited By Big Magilla on 1100931284
A famous person, was it Washington or .. hmm I forget, but he said that you shouldn't just wait around for the good roles. You should seek them out or create them yourselves (like Ben Affleck and Matt Damon did). I mean come on people. This "we have to get Oscar nominations just 'cause we're a minority. That's along the same lines as a prestigious college giving away 20 points just for being a minority. Gee, how nice. I'm hearing impaired. Will you give me a head start and help succeed a hollow victory in life? What kind of lesson will I learn? That I should use my handicap as a way in the door? That I shouldn't have to earn it legitimately? What if a rich, white hearing person had better skills in the field I'm interested in? Should they be turned away just to give a hearing impaired person a break? Only if I'm just as good or better at the work.
The same applies to minorities in acting roles. If they are good, they should get the roles. If they are great, they should get a nomination. End of story.
Edited By Big Magilla on 1100931290
The same applies to minorities in acting roles. If they are good, they should get the roles. If they are great, they should get a nomination. End of story.
Edited By Big Magilla on 1100931290
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19336
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
I'm not sure Merle Oberon counts since she was passing for white at the time. On the other hand, Luise Rainer, Akim Tamiroff, Aline MacMahon and Jennifer Jones were nominated for pretending to be Asians, so maybe they should be added to the count.
The most blatant omissions of Asian actors occurred in 1984 (Victor Banerjee in A Passage to India) and 1987 (John Lone in The Last Emperor).
The door may be open for black performers, but how far has it been opened? Queen Latifah's statement that she is happy to be representing her people sounds very much like the acceptance speech MGM prepared for Hattie McDaniel way back in 1939.
Edited By Big Magilla on 1100931309
The most blatant omissions of Asian actors occurred in 1984 (Victor Banerjee in A Passage to India) and 1987 (John Lone in The Last Emperor).
The door may be open for black performers, but how far has it been opened? Queen Latifah's statement that she is happy to be representing her people sounds very much like the acceptance speech MGM prepared for Hattie McDaniel way back in 1939.
Edited By Big Magilla on 1100931309