Oscar race row

[hewantstolurkatad]

I assumed beasts of no nation was excluded because it's initial release wasnt theatrical?

[Glebe]

Janet Hubert Responds to Jada Pinkett Smith's Boycott of the Oscars.

Saying that "there's a lot of shit going on in the world," is just dismissing the issue entirely. Also, she definitely has a personal axe to grind with former Fresh Prince star Smith.

Here's more folks stance on the issue:

Spike Lee says he isn't boycotting the Oscars. He's just going to the Knicks game.

Whoopi Goldberg on Oscar Diversity Controversy | The View.

Snoop dog about Jada Pinkett Smith Oscar statement.

The last line of that is priceless.

Oscar Nominee Mark Ruffalo Says Call For Boycott Over Race Is A Powerful Gesture.

Oscars 2016: Dustin Hoffman sees 'subliminal racism'.

Oscars 2016: George Clooney and Lupita Nyong'o add to criticism.

Hang on... according to the last video on that BBC page, all of the twenty actors nominated both this and last year are white?!

Gervais made some gag about no Chinese actors being nominated on that Twitter.

[Famous Mortimer]

I don't care about the stupid award show though, and this controversy is further neoliberal co-option of racial injustice.

I agree. The option "stop giving a fuck about the Oscars" doesn't seem to be on the table.

[Noodle Lizard]

Gervais made some gag about no Chinese actors being nominated on that Twitter.

He's got a point, though (haven't read his Tweet, mind).  I was talking to my Japanese friend (honourary Brit on account of having picked up the accent) about all this and we both came to the realisation that Asians in general are far more underrepresented than black people in entertainment, both as far as awards recognition goes and prevalence in general.  Has an Asian ever been nominated for Best Actor?  Who was the last Asian lead in a Western film who wasn't either an action star or a "comedy Asian"?  As far as I know there's never been much made about this, despite Asian-Americans making up 5% of the population.  I suppose Asian cinema being strong in its own right makes this less apparent, but it's odd that they have very little representation in America.

[BlodwynPig]

How many Asians were in the Wild West

Fuck race. We are all humans.

If they gave an oscar to a leopard, then I might be upset.

[Famous Mortimer]

Has an Asian ever been nominated for Best Actor? 

Depends if you count Yul Brynner or Ben Kingsley, both of whom come from Asian stock. So you don't think I'm just really good at remembering this stuff, have a shuftie at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Asian_Academy_Award_winners_and_nominees.

[Crabwalk]

Wait - that guy in Breakfast at Tiffany's wasn't even nominated??

[thecuriousorange]

Hollywood heavyweight Keanu Reeves[nb]He's a bit Chinese, check Wikipedia[/nb] is yet to get an Oscars nod, despite an armful of MTV Movie Awards, Blockbuster Entertainment Awards and World Stunt Awards.

[Small Man Big Horse]

Matt Damon - possibly

Matt Damon's character absolutely could have been black, there was no reason for him not to be. Still would have been a shit film whoever the actor though, and not deserving of any award. Let alone Best fucking Comedy.

[Glebe]

Michael Caine chips in.

Yeah, but why aren't there more black actors getting decent roles?

[Urinal Cake]

How many Asians were in the Wild West

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Chinese_Americans#Arrival_in_the_United_States

'Asians' including South, East and inbetween Asians are the third largest minority group in the US. They might not be represented on film but atleast South Asians like Mindy and Aziz get to headline their own projects to a wide audience. But even that could be said to fit a narrative of South Asians are just the 'funny ones'.

I'm surprised that Hispanics (as the second largest group) haven't kicked up a fuss about representation as well on film. As the American Academy Awards are a 'progressive', semi-benevolent institution they should recognise wider American society and stories even if the box office doesn't.

[Glebe]

Oscars 2016: Charlotte Rampling says diversity row is 'racist to white people'.

Oh do shut up yah silly bint.

[Danger Man]

As the American Academy Awards are a 'progressive', semi-benevolent institution they should recognise wider American society and stories even if the box office doesn't. trade show that gives awards to films that make the most money, we should stop caring about it.

[Noodle Lizard]

I'm surprised that Hispanics (as the second largest group) haven't kicked up a fuss about representation as well on film. As the American Academy Awards are a 'progressive', semi-benevolent institution they should recognise wider American society and stories even if the box office doesn't.

They do quite well in the technical categories, though.  Best Director has been a Mexican two years running (with last year's nominated again this time), and Lubezki is possibly the most widely-acclaimed cinematographer going at the moment (winning the last two cinematography Oscars and likely to win this year's as well).

As far as Hispanic "stories" go, yeah, pretty unrepresented unless it has something to do with drug dealing.  But again, I think that comes down to there not being many Hispanic-Americans in the film industry as a whole.  Which, again, comes down to a wider social issue[nb]namely that Hispanic-Americans tend to be among the poorest demographics, thus unlikely to pursue a career in entertainment which often involves a lot of unpaid work[/nb] rather than exclusion on the industry's part.  If you were to force it, it'd be a white person's approximation of what that kind of life is like, which is hardly ideal.

Also, similarly to Asia, I think because the Mexican (and South American) film industry is acknowledged enough in its own right - with films like Amores Perros, Y Tu Mama Tambien, Sin Nombre and Wild Tales having a lot of exposure in the US - there's probably not as much impetus to bring Hispanic stories into the light, whereas predominantly black countries don't tend to produce movies which get circulated much elsewhere.  That's my guess, anyway.

[Noodle Lizard]

As the American Academy Awards are a trade show that gives awards to films that make the most money, we should stop caring about it.

Well, that's not true, is it?  The movies which make the most money are rarely the biggest contenders at the Oscars.  Room barely made its meagre $6m budget back, Steve Jobs got pulled from theatrical release due to lack of takings and even The Revenant would have been considered a bit of a flop for that budget had it not been so critically successful.

Not to say the Oscars are all about artistic integrity, of course not - a lot of it's political, both internally and externally - but if you care about the industry at all you should definitely be paying attention as it largely dictates the direction filmmaking will go in the next year or two (even in independent cinema).  Go to any indie film festival with the last one or two Best Picture winners in mind and you'll see the influence.  Stupid as it may be, a great deal of people go into filmmaking seeing an Oscar as the end-goal.

[Mr Banlon]

How many Asians were in the Wild West

Fuck race. We are all humans.

If they gave an oscar to a leopard, then I might be upset.

The Leopard got nominated for Best Costume Design in '63

[Hank Venture]

I'm sure Beasts' total lack of nominations has more to do with it being a Netflix film than anything else.  Even though it's clearly a proper film and even got a theatrical release, I'm not sure if the Academy really considers Netflix films as a viable option yet outside of documentary nominations, since it kind of undermines the traditional studio model Hollywood is based on.  Give it a year or two, maybe, and I'm sure it'll be much more acceptable.

If that's the case why would anyone give a shit, the Oscar's are worthless then.

[Noodle Lizard]

If that's the case why would anyone give a shit, the Oscar's are worthless then.

Right, except they're not (see previous post).

Oscar eligibility is complicated.  It's not as simple as "I made a film, people liked it, give me Oscar".  There are many criteria to fulfill, which sometimes means films or (especially) film songs which are nominated all over the place can't even be eligible for Oscars.  That's not just carlessness, it's because if you change the rules for one contender you consider worthy, other people can retroactively complain that they didn't get a nomination under the same criteria.  There's no winning, really.  And if you abolished those criteria entirely, the ceremony could be over 10 hours long.

It's basically an (imperfect) way of imposing limits on themselves, and the nominees tend to be an amalgamation of "the best of the best" from the innumerable other ceremonies, all of which have varying criteria which sometimes results in things like Straight Outta Compton winning Best Picture at the AAFCA or The Martian getting most of the Comedy awards at the 2011 Golden Globes.  In many ways, it's better to have a flawed, but rigorously limited system than something like that. 

In the case of Beasts Of No Nation, I believe it's eligible for Emmy nominations, which no other Oscar contender can be.  So yes, it's a little complicated being that this is pretty much the first time Netflix have submitted an actual film for consideration as a motion picture.  In the grand scheme of things, that kind of "half-on-half" release is unprecedented, it's a big change in the way the industry works.  Is it not unreasonable to expect the Oscars to shift their criteria straight away before it's really taken its final form (and honestly, what's the difference between Beasts and something like Game Change?  The fact that Beasts got a limited theatrical release paid for by Netflix?)

That said, I think in the coming years (assuming Netflix and Hulu and Amazon and the like continue to make successful original films) it'll start to be incorporated into the Oscar criteria.  Regardless, Beasts would have no chance up against this year's contenders if nominated, since it's barely won any other awards so far.  If it had been a complete sweep at the other ceremonies, the Oscars may be forced to immediately alter their criteria to include it.  But that hasn't happened, so.

tl;dr - Oscars aren't perfect, but aren't worthless.

[BritishHobo]

Noodle Lizard if you live in Hollywood then why don't you just pop round and tell them to stop being racist?

Also can I have Will Poulter's autograph

[Hank Venture]

Right, except they're not (see previous post).

Oscar eligibility is complicated.  It's not as simple as "I made a film, people liked it, give me Oscar".  There are many criteria to fulfill, which sometimes means films or (especially) film songs which are nominated all over the place can't even be eligible for Oscars.  That's not just carlessness, it's because if you change the rules for one contender you consider worthy, other people can retroactively complain that they didn't get a nomination under the same criteria.  There's no winning, really.  And if you abolished those criteria entirely, the ceremony could be over 10 hours long.

It's basically an (imperfect) way of imposing limits on themselves, and the nominees tend to be an amalgamation of "the best of the best" from the innumerable other ceremonies, all of which have varying criteria which sometimes results in things like Straight Outta Compton winning Best Picture at the AAFCA or The Martian getting most of the Comedy awards at the 2011 Golden Globes.  In many ways, it's better to have a flawed, but rigorously limited system than something like that. 

In the case of Beasts Of No Nation, I believe it's eligible for Emmy nominations, which no other Oscar contender can be.  So yes, it's a little complicated being that this is pretty much the first time Netflix have submitted an actual film for consideration as a motion picture.  In the grand scheme of things, that kind of "half-on-half" release is unprecedented, it's a big change in the way the industry works.  Is it not unreasonable to expect the Oscars to shift their criteria straight away before it's really taken its final form (and honestly, what's the difference between Beasts and something like Game Change?  The fact that Beasts got a limited theatrical release paid for by Netflix?)

That said, I think in the coming years (assuming Netflix and Hulu and Amazon and the like continue to make successful original films) it'll start to be incorporated into the Oscar criteria.  Regardless, Beasts would have no chance up against this year's contenders if nominated, since it's barely won any other awards so far.  If it had been a complete sweep at the other ceremonies, the Oscars may be forced to immediately alter their criteria to include it.  But that hasn't happened, so.

tl;dr - Oscars aren't perfect, but aren't worthless.

nah, Oscars are worthless, Emmys even more so

[Noodle Lizard]

Also can I have Will Poulter's autograph

The Great Will Poulter doesn't do autographs.  Show some fucking humility.

[Noodle Lizard]

nah, Oscars are worthless, Emmys even more so

k, except they manifestly are not.  They set the standard, however briefly, for what gets funding (integrity-wise, moreso than blockbuster-wise) and what people will try and emulate in the following years.  Put it this way, it's no coincidence that almost all of the Best Picture contenders this year are either historical, based on true stories or both (we're at the moment focusing on films made in the wake of Argo and 12 Years A Slave's wins[nb]also, would The Big Short have been made were it not for the Academy prevalence of Wolf Of Wall Street?[/nb]).  TV drama/comedy/documentary is no different[nb]I wonder if Making A Murderer will be up at this year's Emmy's after the Jinx won Best Documentary/Non-Fiction Series?[/nb].

If you truly want to disrupt the Hollywood model, not watching or paying attention to the Oscars will achieve nothing except for a few "likes" on your Facebook status.

[Hank Venture]

worthless mate

[Noodle Lizard]

Wuhhh-ohhhh!

[Famous Mortimer]

if you care about the industry at all you should definitely be paying attention

I disagree. There's no other field of artistic endeavour for which the same argument could be made - very few of us give a toss about winners of book awards, or Grammys, or British Comedy Awards, or even Emmys / BAFTAs for that matter. Well, okay, I don't give a toss about those things, I'd best not speak for anyone else - they certainly never get mentioned on here, though.

To pluck a best picture winner at random - "Shakespeare In Love". How did that affect indie cinema for the next couple of years? Not a dick question, I'm fully prepared to be proved wrong, I just can't think of any examples. Or "The Artist"?

Although, if your terms are vague enough, you can prove anything. "Argo" and "12 Years A Slave" have basically nothing in common, except being set in the past, so the only lesson funding people took from them was "historical movies"?

I'd be at least a bit surprised if the success of "The Wolf Of Wall Street" had anything to do with "The Big Short" getting made. I reckon Adam McKay had the idea for it since at least the closing credits of "The Other Guys" and would have made it no matter what. But I could be wrong, and I imagine there'll be a quote from him to prove me wrong along soon.

If you truly want to disrupt the Hollywood model, not watching or paying attention to the Oscars will achieve nothing except for a few "likes" on your Facebook status.

Your solution is, presumably, to carry on watching and never try and disrupt the Hollywood model. Let's just give up and watch the pretty dresses, eh?

All award ceremonies are inherently worthless trade shows. Picture a Venn diagram, with very slightly intersecting circles - one circle is "movies people love", the other circle is "movies that have won Oscars".

Although, saying all that, we could be talking at cross purposes. The post I quoted says "if you care about the industry at all..." and I honestly don't. I love movies and don't give a toss about the "industry" (with the very mild exception of being annoyed when a film I like bombs, so it means no sequels).

[Noodle Lizard]

I disagree. There's no other field of artistic endeavour for which the same argument could be made - very few of us give a toss about winners of book awards, or Grammys, or British Comedy Awards, or even Emmys / BAFTAs for that matter. Well, okay, I don't give a toss about those things, I'd best not speak for anyone else - they certainly never get mentioned on here, though.

I can't speak with much authority on book and music awards, but certainly the things which do well within an industry inspire a lot of imitators, and I assume the same goes for every field.

To pluck a best picture winner at random - "Shakespeare In Love". How did that affect indie cinema for the next couple of years? Not a dick question, I'm fully prepared to be proved wrong, I just can't think of any examples. Or "The Artist"?

Well, Shakespeare In Love is famously seen as an outlier.  The better example would be the favourite to win that year, which was Saving Private Ryan.  Then look at the amount of war movies that came out in 2000-2002.  As far as independent movies go, I'm largely talking about the amount of films you see cropping up on the festival circuit.  Certainly in the wake of The Artist there were a lot of "gimmick" movies on the circuit (i.e. films which are more conceptual than content-driven) but I don't think many got very far.

Although, if your terms are vague enough, you can prove anything. "Argo" and "12 Years A Slave" have basically nothing in common, except being set in the past, so the only lesson funding people took from them was "historical movies"?

They're two different films which influenced different types of films.  What I'm saying is that 2-3 years later (which is the average industry lifespan for a film, from inception to awards) we have a list of contenders almost exclusively made up of historical dramas - either political factual (Argo/Bridge Of Spies/Spotlight) or sentimental semi-factual (12 Years/Revenant/Room).  Now, look at the Oscars immediately preceding Argo's win and you'll see none of the same (though arguably The King's Speech win kicked off the most recent trend for sentimental historical dramas, and the year before's Hurt Locker probably didn't hurt Argo's chances of getting greenlit).

I'd be at least a bit surprised if the success of "The Wolf Of Wall Street" had anything to do with "The Big Short" getting made. I reckon Adam McKay had the idea for it since at least the closing credits of "The Other Guys" and would have made it no matter what. But I could be wrong, and I imagine there'll be a quote from him to prove me wrong along soon.

It's definitely an assumption on my part, but patterns in Hollywood are rarely coincidental.  It's never just a director who has an idea and gets to make it, dozens of people have a hand in each Hollywood film getting made.  Perhaps Adam McKay had the idea to adapt the novel before (though Wikipedia says otherwise), but I'm fairly certain the Oscar buzz around Wolf Of Wall Street played a big part in it. 

Your solution is, presumably, to carry on watching and never try and disrupt the Hollywood model. Let's just give up and watch the pretty dresses, eh?

No, my point is that watching the ceremony or boycotting it makes absolutely fuckall difference.  If you really want to disrupt that system, the only real difference you can make is to stop watching Hollywood films.  But nobody wants to do that (quite reasonably, some of them are good).

All award ceremonies are inherently worthless trade shows. Picture a Venn diagram, with very slightly intersecting circles - one circle is "movies people love", the other circle is "movies that have won Oscars".

Like I said, the ceremony itself matters neither one way or the other.  The decisions made, however, have a huge influence on the industry.  There are two parts to Hollywood:  the blockbusters and the "integrity pieces".  Most studios/producers want their fair share of both.  Remember, they are constantly competing with one another.  The box office awards are in the numbers, no need for a ceremony[nb]though it certainly has its own influence on what comes after: how many superhero movies did we have before The Dark Knight compared with after?[/nb], but the "integrity" comes from ceremonies like the Oscars (where the majority of contenders didn't even perform that well at the box office - that's not a mistake).  You can try and pick holes in it all you want, and I'm sure there are some since it's not a science, but to deny that the Oscars have no impact on the industry is simply wrong.

Although, saying all that, we could be talking at cross purposes. The post I quoted says "if you care about the industry at all..." and I honestly don't. I love movies and don't give a toss about the "industry".

Well, the industry largely dictates what films you're given to watch, so the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive unless you exclusively watch independent films (and I mean properly independent).  Of course there's little, if anything, to be done to make a difference short of boycotting all Hollywood movies, but I certainly like to know what's going on and what to expect and the whole Oscar race is a very useful tool for doing so.

It's not some giant conspiracy, it's kind of obvious that people will try and imitate what's been successful recently.  If someone here knows more about the contemporary music industry than I do, I'm sure there are similar observations to be ... er ... observed.  Made.

[Famous Mortimer]

I can't speak with much authority on book and music awards, but certainly the things which do well within an industry inspire a lot of imitators, and I assume the same goes for every field.

Your point was "you have to be interested in the Oscars". I'm probably exaggerating a bit, but no-one has ever said "you have to be interested in the Booker Prize". The second part of your sentence is the crucial bit, and has absolutely nothing to do with Award ceremonies. Take two of the biggest publishing phenomena of recent years - "Gone Girl" and "50 Shades Of Grey". Both enormously successful, both inspired an industry of imitators. Not one iota of their success was down to winning awards. Why do you think movies are somehow unique in this regard?

Well, Shakespeare In Love is famously seen as an outlier.  The better example would be the favourite to win that year, which was Saving Private Ryan.  Then look at the amount of war movies that came out in 2000-2002.  As far as independent movies go, I'm largely talking about the amount of films you see cropping up on the festival circuit.  Certainly in the wake of The Artist there were a lot of "gimmick" movies on the circuit (i.e. films which are more conceptual than content-driven) but I don't think many got very far.

I think your terms are too vague. It's not winners now, but nominees? (Saving Private Ryan was hardly some mid-budget prestige piece) And "gimmick movies" as a genre? I don't know.

They're two different films which influenced different types of films.  What I'm saying is that 2-3 years later (which is the average industry lifespan for a film, from inception to awards) we have a list of contenders almost exclusively made up of historical dramas - either political factual (Argo/Bridge Of Spies/Spotlight) or sentimental semi-factual (12 Years/Revenant/Room).  Now, look at the Oscars immediately preceding Argo's win and you'll see none of the same (though arguably The King's Speech win kicked off the most recent trend for sentimental historical dramas, and the year before's Hurt Locker probably didn't hurt Argo's chances of getting greenlit).

So, what inspired Argo's win? And the win of the movie that inspired that? etc. Sorry, I just don't like these theories that start from some arbitrarily placed point. And historical dramas have always done well at the Oscars , it's not like anyone needed "Argo" winning an Oscar to demonstrate that.

No, my point is that watching the ceremony or boycotting it makes absolutely fuckall difference.  If you really want to disrupt that system, the only real difference you can make is to stop watching Hollywood films.  But nobody wants to do that (quite reasonably, some of them are good).

That's slightly different to what you were arguing before (you left out the "watching them also makes no difference" part). Completely agree with you on that. At least by not watching them, you miss a long, boring evening of self-congratulation.

Stuff about popularity

I think we've had lots of superhero movies because they've made lots of money. Awards have had nothing whatsoever to do with their current cultural dominance. Take comedy. Comedies barely ever win anything at the Oscars, yet they've made tons of money since the movies have been a thing. How do they fit into this narrative of yours? If all Oscar winners do is influence future Oscar winners, it seems like a rather boring closed shop, no?

It's not some giant conspiracy, it's kind of obvious that people will try and imitate what's been successful recently.  If someone here knows more about the contemporary music industry than I do, I'm sure there are similar observations to be ... er ... observed.  Made.

Of course things that are popular now influence things that get made in the near future. No-one's arguing against that. Your argument, though, was that the Oscars are important because they show this trend. I disagree, and think it's the same as every other awards ceremony - in other words, a massive waste of time.

[biggytitbo]

I agree with Charlotte Rampage, there were far, far more white actors snubbed by the Oscars this year than black. If thats not proof that the industry is racist against whites I don't know what is.


Will Smith should go the whole hog and not just boycott the Oscars but boycott the film industry that repeatedly keeps giving him millions of dollars to make whatever film he likes aswell.

[Bhazor]

The better example would be the favourite to win that year, which was Saving Private Ryan.  Then look at the amount of war movies that came out in 2000-2002.

Saving Private Ryan. The world's first ever war film

[checkoutgirl]

I think one of the problems is Ride Along 2 didn't come out in time for consideration this year. I reckon if the academy had seen the nuanced performances by Kevin Hart and Ice Cube they would have got a nomination each and Spike Lee would have been happy.

Pure brilliance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t5Q2SpaiNo