Reasons/blame for Whiteout 2?

[Eenusch]

I get the impression that there is a quiet discomfort among many in the AMPAS membership over the way CBI is handling this.

[OscarGuy]

My concern is that the people who've put in 30 years or more of work, but chose to retire to enjoy the remaining years of their lives, but still remain active in supporting film and dedicate themselves to watching the nominees as presented. Are they to be pushed off the sidelines in favor of younger, possibly hipper voters? Are they going to be retroactively granted lifetime status if they met the non-nominee/30-year work requirement? The press release doesn't go into detail.

What happens now if the young influx decide they want to recognize what's popular, not what's good and we start getting nominees like The Avengers: Age of Ultron in Best Picture? Will it have been worth it? There are a lot of what-ifs and not enough answers.

[Big Magilla]

The changes are still a bit of stuff and nonsense. I wonder how many of the old workhorses will actually be sent to the glue factory and what kind of effect, if any, it will have on next year's nominations. There must be a number of minority members who haven't worked in over ten years. The percentage of voting minority members to old white guys might not change all that much.

What does increasing the number of governors have to do with anything? Women and minorities have been well represented in the honorary Oscars handed out over the last few years. What else do the governors have influence over?

[Mister Tee]

A couple of things:

1) The Rampling interview is apparently translated from French, so i wouldn't assume she spoke as bluntly/offensively as headline-writers are making her out. Having been (at a VERY low level) interviewed by the press at some point in my life, I can say not all interviewers/journalists are anxious to convey full context, and many in fact prefer to clip out the thing that makes one sound most like a idiot.

2) I think Sonic's point is a solid one: that the U.S. -- in the Ferguson/Sandra Bland/Tamir Rice/Donald Trump/much much more -- 2016 climate has been extremely fertile ground for a controversy like this to have flourished well beyond that which the facts provided. So, even if rational response wouldn't have dictated going to such a fever pitch, the American subtext right now pushed it there.

3) The Academy "response plan" doesn't seem to include any of the outright idiocy or panic that the article the other day suggested. I'm doubtful about the logistics of altering the make-up of the voting roster, for a lot of reasons (how far does one go to change the racial make-up? -- inviting in Kevin Hart doesn't seem a great victory for esthetics; what does one do to diversify areas like sound or cinematography, where membership has been as clannishly protective as the NYPD?; will these new female or non-Caucasian voters be considered to have failed if, like this year, they produce an all Caucasian acting slate? -- which is to say, is diversification its own end, or must it result in a slate of nominees that passes a certain inclusion bar?). But I think the plan for getting rid of some of the dead-wood sounds reasonable without turning age-ist (some proposals, to throw out anyone over a certain age no longer active, would have booted Gene Hackman and Jack Nicholson).

These might end up being modernizing changes that bring us happier results in the years just ahead. Or not.

[Mister Tee]

The latest:

http://variety.com/2016/film/awards/osc ... 201685630/

[ITALIANO]

9 of the 13 posters on this site believe Elba would be nominated.

They were predictions - based mostly on the fact that Elba had been nominated elsewhere, including at the SAG, which has never seemed to me to be an especially more open-minded group than the Academy. You should now ask the 4 who didn't predict his nomination if they guessed so because they thought of the Academy's racism - most probably, they will tell you that it was for completely different reasons, which have to do with the crowded field and with the movie's peculiar distribution.

But again - this is just a single case. There have been also many cases of black actors SURPRISINGLY nominated - I remember for example Laurence Fishburne, but there were others... Why weren't such unexpected nods considered grundbreaking signals of racial equality? Because, of course, they simply weren't.

Plus, I mean, awards are subjective. They are voted by people, and people are human. There can be countless reasons why someone isn't nominated, and I can't exclude that some of these reasons have to do with personal aspects of some single voters, including for example political views, or even, why not, pathological traits or even fears. But when a group is as large as the Academy, it's impossible to know exactly what played a role and how, and I think it's also useless. It's not like a black actor MUST be Oscar-nominated. He (or she) should find work of course, and have opportunities - if he is talented - and this, sadly, CAN be the real problem; but awards come later, and anyway, are awards so important? In America, I know, they are, but come on...

(As for the Academy often nominating young and pretty actresses, you are right of course - it happens, and often. But it's completely different, and for two reasons. First of all, we are talking about inclusion, and not exclusion, and inclusiion CAN be proved; but also the composition of the Academy is objectvely mostly male - and mostly heterosexual - so the fact that this can influence a certain kind of choices is in some ways rational. But how can one prove racism? Please...).

[Sonic Youth]

But why, then, are we so quick to dismiss the claims that racism, homophobia, etc. maybe did play a role in the nominations? ... Nor am I going to dismiss the possibility that racism within the Academy played its part in snubbing Idris Elba .

Mmm... Hello? They DO nominate black actors. Frequently, in the last decade. So if you think that not nominating Idris Elba is a sign of racism, you should also say that, for example, nominating Barkhad Abdi or Quvenzhanè Wallis is an act of anti-racism - you can't only look at just ONE episode in ONE year! It's the whole context which must be considered. An insitution can't be racist one year and anti-racist the year before - it's so clear, so obvious. Why are Americans so blind sometimes?

Exactly. They can't be racist one year and not racist the next year. (I'm using the term "not racist", because I'm sure the Oscars are "anti-racist" in their general outlook.) And because there have been advances and nominations in recent years doesn't mean that whatever remaining racism exists has been fully shaken off. As I said, I'm not embracing whole-heartedly that Elba's snub, or Carol's snub was due to some prejudiced members of the Academy. But I'm not entirely dismissing it either. Some people are. Fair enough. They may be right. I'm not convinced, one way or the other.

And again, to prove how the Academy isn't more racist than you are, Sonic Youth (and you clearly aren't racist), think of its long history and compare the number of black performances which have won an Oscar with those YOU would have given an award to. It's easy. You'll be surprised when you realize that you'd honor much less blacks than the Academy have done. Does this mean that you are a bigoted white conservative? I doubt.

That's one way to look at it. There are others.

(BTW, right now we're talking about the nominations. I don't know about winners, but I'm pretty confident that my nomination choices on most given years would be more diverse than the Academy's. At the very least, they would be more foreign language contenders.)

I went back and looked at the Final Predictions thread. There were 13 ballots. 9 of the 13 posters on this site believe Elba would be nominated. 11 belived Todd Haynes would be nominated. 12 believed Carol would be nominated for Best Picture. We have some very intelligent people here who know all about how AMPAS works, and based on the evidence three-quarters believed Elba had a good shot. Almost everyone believed Haynes and/or Carol would pull through. Maybe because just enough members didn't feel "Beasts" was a priority (but why?). Maybe because they didn't think Elba was good enough. Maybe because Carol left too many of the voters cold (but why?). Maybe they didn't think the movie was good enough. Point is, 3/4 of the posters judged Elba's chances the same way they would have if he were a different actor in his position; and Carol's chances the same way they would have were it a different movie. We can say now "Elba didn't get nominated because of this technical reason", but 3/4 of the posters either weren't convinced, or were convinced he would overcome it. After all, he did get nominations in a not inconsiderable number of places elsewhere. Why not acknowledge that there could be a racist/bigoted element to all this as part of the explanation, an element that did not manifest or could not overcome the other examples that you provide? We're never going to know anyway.... one way or the other. Which is why I don't dismiss it as a reason, not outright.

And what makes us so sure that the Academy LOVES performances by attractive young women whom they want to fuck? We don't know that for sure, do we? Granted, there's the voting history (and the young hot babe doesn't always win, it should be noted). We know the demographics of the Academy, a male majority. But that doesn't mean they're voting with their dicks. They may be openminded males who legitimately believe they vote for the best performance, and aren't swayed by any hormonal factors. Yet, we still say "The Academy loves its starlets" as naturally as breathing. Look at the PGA noms, and remember how disconcerting it was to see how there were no films with a female protagonist except for Brooklyn, while Room and Carol were left off... and in a field of ten films, not eight. The implication being, the PGA's membership is male-dominated, and therefore they had less interest in supporting Room or Carol. And people here made that implication, and put it out there as a possibility. Is it wrong? It could be. Do we have proof? No. Do some of us suspect that that's the reason (or part of the reason) anyway? Yes, even though it can't be proven, some of us very strongly suspect that's the reason. And not too many people would argue with that suspicion, I don't think.

Now, there's another part to this, and that's the intensity of the outcry and the Academy's response. Here, Marco, I think we're on more common ground. But there's one other thing going on that I hope non-Americans take into account. For the past 18 months or so, tbis country has been having a nervous breakdown. It has become a really scary place to live in. Sometimes exhilarating, but mostly scary. The random mass shootings which continue to escalate without a thing being done to prevent them; the police shootings and beatings of black civilians from white cops; the rising anger of the black community (among others) which has led to a fresh new black movement; the fear that some other Americans have of this movement, and the pushback from them and increased racism as a result; the increase in public protests; the increase in devastating riots in poor cities; the rise of a new leftist student movement in the universities that is becoming very powerful. And, to top it all off, the candidacy of Donald Trump, which is unlike anything we've ever seen in our lifetimes, if ever, and even if he doesn't win (for now, I don't know if he'll even be nominated), his "cult of personality" has had such an devestaing effect it'll take years for this country to recover. Most recently is the nauseating scandal happening in Flint Michigan, which literally makes me want to vomit in which tens of thousands of its (majority black, majority poor) citizens have been poisoned due to government negligence and indifference. Google it if you don't know about this.

All of this put together is the backdrop of the Oscar protests. I think the overreaction is a sign of the hysterical times we're living in now. There have always been outcries of racism at the Oscars on certain years, and it usually never amounted to more than a week's worth of publicity. This time, it has ballooned like we've never seen before. It's out of proportion to the Oscar nominations, but very much in keeping with the mood of a country on edge. I'm not saying "This is why you should agree with them, or stop criticizing them". Not at all. I'm just providing a little more context to the situation.

[ITALIANO]

But why, then, are we so quick to dismiss the claims that racism, homophobia, etc. maybe did play a role in the nominations? ... Nor am I going to dismiss the possibility that racism within the Academy played its part in snubbing Idris Elba .

Mmm... Hello? They DO nominate black actors. Frequently, in the last decade. So if you think that not nominating Idris Elba is a sign of racism, you should also say that, for example, nominating Barkhad Abdi or Quvenzhanè Wallis is an act of anti-racism - you can't only look at just ONE episode in ONE year! It's the whole context which must be considered. An insitution can't be racist one year and anti-racist the year before - it's so clear, so obvious. Why are Americans so blind sometimes?

And again, to prove how the Academy isn't more racist than you are, Sonic Youth (and you clearly aren't racist), think of its long history and compare the number of black performances which have won an Oscar with those YOU would have given an award to. It's easy. You'll be surprised when you realize that you'd honor much less blacks than the Academy have done. Does this mean that you are a bigoted white conservative? I doubt.

[Greg]

I think one point that is being missed is the shortage of good roles overall, regardless of the race, etc., of the performer, because of how Hollywood is so dominated by action franchises, plus a few animated films. For example, Matt Damon's role in The Martian is the only one of the 20 nominated performances that came from one of the top 20 grossing films of 2015.

[Sonic Youth]

As perhaps the only person willing to give some of the blame to AMPAS for this issue,

Nearly everyone here, including me, has suggested that if there is indeed prejudice within the industry, then the Oscar noms are a symptom, not a cause. However - speaking only for myself - that doesn't mean I'm not willing to give AMPAS some blame. I'm more than happy to. If there's racism and bigotry in the industry, then AMPAS deserves blame for doing its part, even if it's just an innocent consequence of the bigger picture. The problem is, in between the release of a movie and the Oscar nomination announcements, it's difficult to pinpoint where exactly this prejudice plays a part. So, arguably if we're going to put the label of "bigots" on AMPAS, we'd better have something concrete to back that claim up. All we have, really, are the Oscar noms.

But why, then, are we so quick to dismiss the claims that racism, homophobia, etc. maybe did play a role in the nominations? Why take that off the table? We don't have proof of anything other than our observations. So why doesn't that make all the other speculations regarding the noms equally disposable? Because I'm not at all convinced that just because we can't definitively PROVE bigotry in the voting process, it then follows that there was none. If that's the case, then it follows that all our other institutions - business, government, law enforcement - are unbiased and have not a trace of racism, sexism, etc. in them. And their are lots of people who sincerely believe this, too. I don't, and anyone with sense doesn't either AFAIC. (I think there is nothing more racist than our law enforcement system, even though we can't say that all the shootings and murders of our black citizens at the hands of these goons were because these police were racist at heart, and the institution was racist for defending their goons. But why can't we? Because no one openly said the word "nigger"?) Nor am I going to dismiss the possibility that racism/homophobia within the Academy played its part in snubbing Idris Elba and Carol for the two most important noms. Can I say that's what happened? This year, not definitively. Nor will I say "Oh, no. Accusing the Academy of such motives is going too far."

And It doesn't have to be all of AMPAS. It could be 10-15% of the voting membership, more than enough to have an effect absent any other considerations as to why something or someone got snubbed. That's not a blanket indictment on all of AMPAS, but it's a very plausible scenario, no? It's as plausible as all the other explanations.

I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take. But if AMPAS undermines it, and undermines people's grievances with these "solutions", it would be a shame and an embarrassment. If AMPAS is going to go back to the 10 nom slate and increase the acting noms, then that is a silly, jelly-fish spined way of solving the problem, and it's NOT a solution to anything. It's just a book-keeping trick. But let's not get carried away ourselves. Nothing has been proposed. They've just been anonymously suggested in a news article. I think that's called a "trial balloon". Let's wait and see if that's all that it is.

[mlrg]

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/ja ... ite-people

Now Rampling has spoken.

She is 100% correct. But she's european....

Of course, but I like that she doesn't seem to care about winning the Oscar or not and that she's brave enough to make such a right statement.

This whole thing is a shame because in the end is preventing all of us of debating the nominees, predictions, precursos, etc....

[CalWilliam]

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/ja ... ite-people

Now Rampling has spoken.

She is 100% correct. But she's european....

Of course, but I like that she doesn't seem to care about winning the Oscar or not and that she's brave enough to make such a right statement.

[mlrg]

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/ja ... ite-people

Now Rampling has spoken.

She is 100% correct. But she's european....

[CalWilliam]

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/ja ... ite-people

Now Rampling has spoken.

[ITALIANO]

I can't believe that nobody in the Academy will express the same kind of rational thoughts that I can read in this thread. Are they all crazy? Or is this subject so sensitive in America that people seem to lose their minds? Now I'm really not surprised by Donald Trump's success...

But also these blacks. How is it possible that noone - NOONE - has even shyly stood up on tv or in a newspaper and said that there IS a problem, of course, but it's not about the Oscars - but a much bigger one and the Oscars can only mirror it? Is it so difficult? How is it possible that no black actor or actress has reacted to that absurd idea of 8 or 10 acting nominees by pointing out that this is an insult to their talent, because it implies that otherwise they would never get nominared? I'm shocked by the black community.