Reasons/blame for Whiteout 2?

[Big Magilla]

It's supposed to be about excellence. Expanding the number of Emmy nominees in TV where there's been a marked increase in excellence makes more sense, but not the Oscars given that we're going in the other direction. Even with just five nominees per category in TV you could still have a scenario where Viola Davis, Kerry Washington, Taraji P. Henson and Julianna Marguiles could fill four of the five slots for Best Actress to everyone's delight. With movie awards you can't do that because the roles aren't there. The two times Will Smith was nominated he lost to black actors (Denzel Washington, Forest Whitaker). This year even if they were to have nominated him, he likely would be the only one in his category. He may have missed by two or three votes or he may have missed by hundreds. Expanding his category to eight wouldn't guarantee him a nomination.

Smith actually gives what is often called an Oscar bait-y performance in an Oscar bait-y movie. If this were 1936 (Paul Muni) or 1982 (Ben Kingsley) he would be a shoo-in but, irony of ironies, lead roles have become more diverse.

Maybe Sheryl Booone Isaacs is using the much derided Satellite Awards as her model. Since their 1997 split from the Golden Globes, they've probably nominated more minority performers than any other awards organization but even so, this year they have twenty-five acting nominees in film and ten for Best Picture. There's no Straight Outta Compton and only one black performer (Will Smith) nominated for Best Actor out of a field of seven and only one Hispanic (Benicio Del Toro) nominated in Best Supporting Actor out of a field of six.

Last year they had two as well - David Oyelowo and Gugu Mbatha-Raw, both nominated in a field of seven.

The other idea that gets bounced around a lot is removing voting privileges of members who haven't made a movie in ten or twenty years or because of age. Maybe if they're declared incompetent by a court it would OK, but in reality it's the older membership that has the time to sit and watch movies that working members of the Academy don't. It's more likely the busy working professionals with limited viewing time that are most susceptible to the "for your consideration" ads and glad-handers at parties they always seem able to attend even though they have be on set at 5 A.M. in the morning.

[Precious Doll]

Cheryl Boone Isaacs regrets the results and will open the floodgates to 8 acting nominations per category and a max 10 in Best Picture again.

While leave it with acting. There are already 20 of them nominated most years. The Academy may as well go the whole hog and expand all the categories.

[Eenusch]

Why do I feel like QE (Quantitative Easing) has come to the Oscars.

Do as Ben Bernanke – when you don't get the result you want, just print more money.

Cheryl Boone Isaacs regrets the results and will open the floodgates to 8 acting nominations per category and a max 10 in Best Picture again.

[Precious Doll]

The Guardian has been giving this lots of coverage this week.

Here is the latest: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/ja ... n-american

I like Dustin Hoffman's comment that he is glad he isn't nominated this year.

[Big Magilla]

Now Mark Ruffalo is blaming white privilege for the whiteout instead of having the guts to say that Idris Elba should've been nominated instead of himself. Crazy! Of course, he tweeted that he will attend the show in support of journalists and sexual abuse survivors in the church.

Who will he blame when he loses to Sylvester Stallone or Mark Rylance?

[mlrg]

This whole situation is getting quite an attention from the media in my country and the general consensus is that it is pretty ridiculous. Political correctness is getting worse every day, specially when it's as hypocritical as disproportional.

[Eenusch]

Now Mark Ruffalo is blaming white privilege for the whiteout instead of having the guts to say that Idris Elba should've been nominated instead of himself. Crazy! Of course, he tweeted that he will attend the show in support of journalists and sexual abuse survivors in the church.

[Okri]

Oh, agreed. I actually think you can couple Elba and Shannon quite instructively - small films from distributors who are outside even the mini-studios/distributors still fairly new at the game. A24 was in a similar position last year and learned from it. Netflix has had some success with documentaries, but I think there's definitely a different between documentary distribution and expected mainstream distribution for narrative/"main" players.

[OscarGuy]

The Golden Globes aren't an industry group. They are journalists...who went out of their way to nominate Netflix TV shows left and right. I'd say that comparison is a bit faulty.

SAG's membership consists of people from a number of disciplines, including television. They just want to get work, they don't care where it comes from, so Netflix isn't a threat to their bank accounts, it's a boon. On top of that, Idris Elba was also a prominent player on the TV side with Luther, making him a very visible actor at a time when visibility can often help. With TV and film actors voting together, the tendency is to be a bit broader in your acceptance of companies like Netflix.

BAFTA is the only entity of the three you list that has any claim to being a good example. If Elba weren't British, I might be more prone to accept your declaration. I'm sure that Maggie Smith and Julie Walters are pleased that there's no obvious British bias.

[flipp525]

Idris Elba would have been nominated if Beasts of No Nation had been released in a more Hollywood-friendly manner. That's not racial, it's Hollywood saying that they have rules and all these new methods of distribution are not equal to a premiere and distribution by industry accepted means (i.e, in a theatre). How are they addressing that particular situation? Because there are only going to be more films that follow that model in the coming years, awards be damned.

On the other hand, he was nominated by Golden Globes, SAG and BAFTA so the distribution by the industry accepted means would not be considered the reason...

I think stating that the wonky distribution of Beasts of No Nation was not (at least partly) the reason Elba missed out on a nomination is incredibly naïve, at best.

[Big Magilla]

From the Hollywood Reporter:

Penelope Ann Miller, best known for Carlito's Way and The Artist, is a member of the actors branch that could have nominated Creed's Michael B. Jordan, Concussion's Will Smith, The Hateful Eight's Samuel L. Jackson or Beasts of No Nation's Idris Elba. "I voted for a number of black performers, and I was sorry they weren't nominated," she tells THR. "But to imply that this is because all of us are racists is extremely offensive. I don't want to be lumped into a category of being a racist because I'm certainly not and because I support and benefit from the talent of black people in this business. It was just an incredibly competitive year."

Miller, who is coming off of John Ridley's American Crime and is headed to Sundance with Nate Parker's slave drama The Birth of a Nation, continues, "I loved Beasts of No Nation, and I loved Idris Elba in it — I just think not enough people saw it, and that's sometimes what happens. Straight Outta Compton was a great film; I think it just lost some Academy members who are older. There were a lot of omissions of white people that I think were just as disappointing — I'm sure [Spotlight's] Michael Keaton is bummed, you know?"

Another member of the actors branch, who wishes to remain anonymous, says, "I'm very offended by the idea that some people are calling us racists — race was the furthest thing from my mind when I cast my ballot, and in fact I nominated one person of color for an award. Such a sweeping declaration is extremely irresponsible."

Jeremy Larner, a member of the writers branch — which did nominate Compton's (white) writers for best original screenplay — was a civil rights activist in the 1960s and won an Oscar for 1972's The Candidate. "I cannot prove the Academy or anyone else is not racist," he grants. But, he says in his own defense, "I have voted for many people of color for awards." He adds, "I happen to think Straight Outta Compton is not a great film for reasons of structure and substance. I can imagine it is a powerful affirmation for those who share the assumptions of its music and see it as fans. But to me, a good film has to show a lot more than this one does."

Larner feels that people displeased with the noms should focus their frustrations on the bigger picture. “It is not a time to make enemies among those who would move us further in the direction of fairness, freedom and justice,” he argues, referring to attempts to make voting harder for black people in many states. Miller agrees. “There were an incredible number of films in 2015 that were primarily about white people. Talk to the studios about changing that, not the Academy. There’s only so much we can do.” She adds, “I think when you make race the issue, it can divide people even further, and that’s what I worry about.”

[mlrg]

Idris Elba would have been nominated if Beasts of No Nation had been released in a more Hollywood-friendly manner. That's not racial, it's Hollywood saying that they have rules and all these new methods of distribution are not equal to a premiere and distribution by industry accepted means (i.e, in a theatre). How are they addressing that particular situation? Because there are only going to be more films that follow that model in the coming years, awards be damned.

On the other hand, he was nominated by Golden Globes, SAG and BAFTA so the distribution by the industry accepted means would not be considered the reason...

[flipp525]

Idris Elba would have been nominated if Beasts of No Nation had been released in a more Hollywood-friendly manner. That's not racial, it's Hollywood saying that they have rules and all these new methods of distribution are not equal to a premiere and distribution by industry accepted means (i.e, in a theatre). How are they addressing that particular situation? Because there are only going to be more films that follow that model in the coming years, awards be damned.

[ITALIANO]

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.

No well, I didn't mean it this way Before changing rules which are the result of a long history, one should stop one moment and try to understand why such rules were chosen in the first place, and why they resisted for so many years; and try to analyze the question and consider if the rule changes will actually have good results or not. History isn't always a burden - it often has its reasons. In America it all seems so quick, so emotional even. Don't get me wrong - changing things is not just positive but sometimes necessary. But it can't be done by irrational instinct.

[Big Magilla]

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.

I may be wrong but I thought initial ballots were always five. Be that as it may, the way I recall the explanation being given for going to the sliding rule was that that would put the focus on the films that appear on most ballots as opposed to those that appear at the top of most ballots.

Whatever the announced intent, or the real reasons behind it, the result is that with fewer than ten you are going to have greater exclusion, which renders the whole idea asinine.

I personally like the idea of five as there are rarely years in which there are more than five strong candidates for Best Picture. Usually there are fewer than five. However, if you're going to expand the number, then make it a set number like ten or even twelve.