Reasons/blame for Whiteout 2?

[Okri]

Italiano, that's an interesting take on it.

Firstly, I have to admit I don't much care to hear "tradition" or "history" when it comes to decisions we should make now, with our current attitudes and awareness. Those arguments tend to be trotted out when a school wants to defend a racist mascot and frankly, we can do without. If that's your number one argument, I'm gonna assert you've already lost.

Now, lets be clear, I am well aware that isn't anyone's only argument here - the fact that the choice to expand to six acting nominees won't in fact increase diversity nor increase quality (though in my own line-ups, I never cut myself off. But not having to follow arbitrary rules is more fun).

As perhaps the only person willing to give some of the blame to AMPAS for this issue, I want to applaud AMPAS for actually attempting to do something. What they're doing is entirely misguided and wrong is disappointing, as it takes more responsibility for something they can't ultimately change. But that seems to be more than most studios are willing to do (where the majority of the blame lies). I also look forward to the media/critics/bloggers actually promoting diversity of thought (The New York Film Critics Circle, for example, is 25% women, which is on par with AMPAS - LA and National Society have lower percentages) as opposed to cheering on the Age of Jurassic World Awakens - I'd argue that's where the next part of the blame lies.

PS: Big Magilla, I don't quite know why the sliding scale was introduced, but didn't the voting procedures change concurrently so that voters only went with five votes (as opposed to ten)? That would tend towards exclusion, not inclusion.

PPS: Contrary to my earlier thought, we have seen strides forward. It would probably be gross of AMPAS to release the stats because that will give the impression they think they've done enough, but frankly, they've done more than most.

[ITALIANO]

I think that - while this certainly shows the pervasive influence of internet - there's something else, which is I believe very American: the dismissive attitude toward history (in this case, a prestigious history which will soon be 100-years long). Of course, one can see it under a positive light: it shows how Americans (unlike Europeans, or at least Italians) are flexible, open to changes.
Still, I'm not sure that it's always a good thing. One can't change the rules of an institution just to follow a temporary fashion. Rules are rules, like them or not, and can't be modified in order to "satisfy everyone". Because there will be always someone who's not satisfied - so what will they do? 20 acting nominees per category? It's all just so emotional, so irrational - the dark side of the "political correct", which I have always found so superficial and so misleading.
Plus, I mean - the nominees were five when American cinema used to be great and produce great performances. Can't they see how dangerous it is to change it to TEN now that honestly American cinema is artistically at its lowest point?
But the internet crowd will be happy.

[Big Magilla]

The sliding scale was allegedly introduced for inclusion, not exclusion. Everything else is speculation and rumor.

[The Original BJ]

Have to disagree with your memory, here. As I understood it (from quotes I read at the time), the sliding scale was introduced not to block out The Blind Side -- they LOVED a $200 million film being on the slate -- but to keep A Serious Man/Winter's Bone from making it at the same time. The thinking was the sliding scale would keep bringing on more big hits but exclude the little art films. (There's little evidence they were correct; till this year's Martian & Mad Max, it's the pop films that have seemed boxed out.)

My thought was that the sliding scale was introduced because the Academy felt like it would be too easy for the brand to be diminished with a full ten nominees every year (as The Blind Side was the butt of a lot of jokes that year), but your reasoning seems just as valid as well. And as you say, they were wrong -- I remember being perfectly amused by the fact that 2012's "extra" nominees were not The Dark Knight Rises and Skyfall, but Amour and Beasts of the Southern Wild.

Man, what madness this all is. And, truly, who'd have thought that the Best Picture omission that would have caused the most outrage -- in a year that left off Carol! -- would be Straight Outta Compton. (There's been a lot of instant revisionism as well -- article after article argues that most people thought it would be nominated, when I don't recall that being the case at all.)

[Heksagon]

Why is it assumed if the character isn't explicitly non-white that the character then must be white?

I don't want to single out any particular movie, but there are dozens and dozens of Oscar-worthy movies that featured a white lead that would have been just as effective of films had the lead been played by a non-white. The emphasis here needs to be on CASTING non-white leads, not in creating special movies that require them.

One of the things you should note, is that these days a lot of the biggest films in Hollywood are based on a franchise - whether on novels like Twilight and Hunger Games or on comics. These films provide huge opportunities for unknown actors to break into stardom and most of the main roles in these films are for white characters. Actually I think this is one of the main reasons why there have been so few blacks breaking into stardom in the last 5-10 years.

[Heksagon]

It is a wonder that nobody has raised the fact that very few non-whites have won major film critic awards (New York, L.A. & National Society of Film Critics) over the years.

People on Twitter don't know or care who won critics awards, and journalists are not going to write negatively about their co-workers.

[Heksagon]

Selma got nominated last year, probably thanks to the expanded slate of nominations, and it isn't helping the Academy much, because Oyewolo and DuVernay were not nominated. The fact is, there are always going to be people who will feel that they should have been nominated when they weren't. And if those people are black, there's a good chance that they will lay the blame on racial discrimination, like Nixon blaming the Jews when things didn't go right for him.

It's a huge mistake for the Academy to give credence to idea that they are discriminating against blacks. Once that impression takes hold, it's not going to disappear easily. Nonetheless, the point that the Academy membership is not particularly diversified is probably valid, and taking steps to remedy that is probably a good idea.

But for the lack of black nominees, they should point the blame to studios not releasing more films with blacks in prominent roles, and ask to draw comparisons with other award organizations to see if AMPAS is really any worse. What is happening right now, the Academy is taking the bullet for something that the American film industry as a whole is to blame.

This situation makes Cheryl Boone Isaacs looks good in the press as they portray her as a reformer of a supposedly corrupt organization. Incidentally, what happened is that the Academy elected Boone - a PR specialist no less - as their President to specifically make the Academy more diversified, long before the press had really made it an issue. Boone implemented her reforms, but they failed to have the impact she had hoped for. So now she's laying the blame on the people who elected her. It doesn't make me think very highly of her to be honest.

[Precious Doll]

8 or 10 acting nominees, they must be joking! It wouldn't really help much though it would hopefully reduce the amount of category fraud.

How about releasing details of pictures, actors & directors who missed out on nominations for each of the last 20 to 30 years. That may give an indication of the voting patterns of members in general. Though it also may cause even more outrage and embarrassment to the Academy depending on the results.

It is a wonder that nobody has raised the fact that very few non-whites have won major film critic awards (New York, L.A. & National Society of Film Critics) over the years.

From the top of my head I can name Denzel Washington (2), Jamie Foxx, Michael B. Jordan, Mo'Nique (3), Jennifer Hudson, Forest Whitaker (I think), Gong Li, Hye-Ja Kim & the leading lady from Poetry. No doubt I am missing a couple. Anyway it is probably less than the total that have won Oscars, and the critics combined have given out more acting awards than the Academy.

We can look at this as the evolving changes that go on in every facet of life. Nothing stays the same forever and some changes turn out to be very positive.

[Mister Tee]

Good god. This is what happens when serious issues get thrashed out on Twitter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/busin ... p=cur&_r=0

after the expansion to 10 Best Picture nominees (basically because The Dark Knight didn't get nominated), and then the reduction to a sliding scale (basically because The Blind Side did).

Have to disagree with your memory, here. As I understood it (from quotes I read at the time), the sliding scale was introduced not to block out The Blind Side -- they LOVED a $200 million film being on the slate -- but to keep A Serious Man/Winter's Bone from making it at the same time. The thinking was the sliding scale would keep bringing on more big hits but exclude the little art films. (There's little evidence they were correct; till this year's Martian & Mad Max, it's the pop films that have seemed boxed out.)

I can't even give these proposals the dignity of serious debate; to me, they're bad ideas that are only going to cheapen the brand, such as it is. I think flailing is the only word for this -- it's like taking suggestions from sports-talk radio fans -- and it's embarrassing to watch.

[The Original BJ]

Good god. This is what happens when serious issues get thrashed out on Twitter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/busin ... p=cur&_r=0

Not to comment prematurely, but if there are significant changes afoot (and I mean beyond the membership, specifically the number of acting nominees) you really do have to stop and take a second to analyze how the social media era has affected the Academy. Something like expanding the number of acting nominees would be the third HUGE change in less than eight years, after the expansion to 10 Best Picture nominees (basically because The Dark Knight didn't get nominated), and then the reduction to a sliding scale (basically because The Blind Side did). Certainly people have always been annoyed about something with the Oscars -- they're the Oscars -- but it seems like only in these very recent years has the organization just seemed to be flailing in the wind making radical changes trying to satisfy whatever the grievance du jour is on the Internet during any given year.

I don't think the expansion back to 10 would be a huge change now, though I question what effect it would really have. (After all, Selma did place last year, and though I do bet Carol would have made it in one of those two extra spots, I still have big doubts that Straight Outta Compton or Creed would have.) But six acting nominees? I really hope that doesn't happen. That would amount to throwing an eighty year tradition out the window with virtually zero evidence that would actually solve the problem. Voters can barely come up with FIVE Best Actress candidates in most years -- and can you think of any recent year in which the sixth would likely have been an actress of color? Ziyi Zhang in Memoirs of a Geisha is just about the only one that comes to mind -- is the world such a worse place that she wasn't on the ballot?

[Mister Tee]

Good god. This is what happens when serious issues get thrashed out on Twitter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/busin ... p=cur&_r=0

[Greg]

I agree that Will Smith probably would not have done as well as Matt Damon in The Martian, but, I think David Oyelowo would have been up to the part.

[OscarGuy]

Precious, I think TV has something like what you're talking about. Not an in-writing quota, but every year GLAAD and other groups discuss their representation on television and take to task networks that poorly represent their community. That's the kind of thing that needs to happen more frequently, especially in film. If NAACP, AARP, GLAAD, NOW, ADL and other groups held studios and execs' feet to the fire, things might change for the better.

[flipp525]

Had Will Smith played the role there is no doubt he would have given a performance equal to or better than Matt Damon.

I don't know... While I wouldn't have nominated Matt Damon for an Oscar this year, I still think that he's a more subtle actor than Will Smith. He played the role with a kind of low-key charm which I found quite appropriate.

I agree with Marco. I actually just shuddered thinking about Will Smith playing that role. It would've been a completely different (not as good) film and I doubt he would've been nominated for anything outside of an MTV Movie Award and, if lucky, a Golden Globe (Best Actor - Musical/Comedy).

[ITALIANO]

Had Will Smith played the role there is no doubt he would have given a performance equal to or better than Matt Damon.

I don't know... While I wouldn't have nominated Matt Damon for an Oscar this year, I still think that he's a more subtle actor than Will Smith. He played the role with a kind of low-key charm which I found quite appropriate.