Yeah, ummm, I am kind of busy at the moment but still wanted to respond.
I thought, however, by reputation even studio people were liberals. As far as not casting minorities I thought that was a financial decision for them… if true, that is still not good. But it’s not the same as them being die hard racists.
sorry, I’m not good at math, I still don’t get it… how is everything else “not equal”
Yes, of course that is correct. Like, 100% agree with you on that.
Possibly. But you need to actually do the math first by comparing them to the total pool of contenders and then comparing that to whites in the same way.
so you’ll are basically saying… well there are only a handfull of “notable” black actors so of course those few will get nominations… but as a whole, African Americans have less of a chance in movies than white people do?
I’m saying that MIGHT be true, or it MIGHT be false, and you won’t know until you get all the data and do the math. But yeah, that’s the type of comparison needed.
From the parallel thread in Cafe Society:
And it seems to me the math should be done for both sides of the argument.
This was explicitly Spike Lee’s point - * “The Academy Awards is not where the ‘real’ battle is,” wrote Lee. “It’s in the executive office of the Hollywood studios and TV and cable networks. This is where the gate keepers decide what gets made. … This is what’s important. The gate keepers. Those with ‘the green light’ vote.”*
Quoted in this SFGate article, where film critic ( and scholar ) Mick LaSalle agreed with him and made the argument that it was really black actresses that are truly seeing a dearth of quality roles.
So a bit more nuanced than just bias in the Academy, but more a systemic issue of too few black movers and shakers in the upper echelons of Hollywood to help set the agenda.
ok
I am actually going out, to the next town over to a 16 screen cinema to watch the Revenant. And, to get Sushi. Good restaurants are also limited in this small town.
Thank you to the people who participated in this thread.
I’m saying, if the same people made the same movies and gave the same performances and faced the same competition and only 5 (instead of 29) were nominated, that would be indicative of greater bias.
If, however, different people gave different quantities and qualities of performance, then 5 may or may not be meaningful in that new context.
That’s not the reputation I’ve heard, but I have no firm numbers.
I don’t really think many (if any) are arguing diehard racism. I think, as brickbacon noted, that the problem may well have more to do with obliviousness and lack of concern/attention than KKK tendencies.
It has long been rumored, e.g., that movies appealing to middle-aged white men have a particularly good chance at the Oscars because so many of the voters are middle-aged white men, and they vote for what is familiar or what is personally interesting rather than what is objectively great. Straight Outta Compton, to name one, is not a movie whose primary demographic is middle-aged white men. If the Academy voters don’t find the movie personally appealing, do they still give equal consideration to the quality of the work, or do they dismiss it reflexively, or are they simply unaware because it’s not on their own radar, or do they actively go out of their way to snub it? Only the last of these is conscious racism, but the middle two are equally biased.
Thanks. Though the better comparison is to possible contenders, as discussed above, rather than just population. Of course, that itself is a problem because contenders for nomination may be artificially low, so maybe you do both and see what happens.
WAS maybe? Before Denzel Washington won in 2001, who was the last AA to win best actor and when? Clue: He played a teacher.
Asians only have themselves to blame. There are a lot of Asians behind the scenes. Justin Lin. James Wan. They don’t cast Asians. My son is a professional actor. I think he gets cast because he looks very Caucasian, light brown hair with hazel eyes, but has an Asian last name.
What a ridiculous comparison. Oscars are nominated every year. Presidents, every 4 years. And an incumbent president has a significant advantage to being re-elected. Honest question: do you know anything at all about statistics?
Seems a pretty reasonable comparison to me. The argument is that the Academy, being overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly picks whites as nominees (that’s “significant advantage” for being melanin-deficient). The whole point is that “29/300” ISN’T a statistically sound comparison, anymore than “2 of last 4 presidential terms,” because robert163, by looking only at nominees and ignoring the much larger universe of never-nominated, is comparing apples and kumquats, in the same way that looking at only Obama and Bush ignores the much larger universe of people in politics.
I am missing your point. Percentage wise, more white actors are never nominated than black actors just like more white actors ARE nominated. I think everyone would agree that in the past, black actors were conspicuously left out but this century has seem to have had a big shift.
And 300 choices over 15 years is so obviously a better sampling size of 4 choices that I honestly have no idea where you are coming from there.
His point was sound, and demonstrated a knowledge of statistics.
The danger here is that nominee’s will be chosen because of their colour and not because of the quality of the work performed
And it doesn’t have to be any one of these alone, and it doesn’t have to be a big bias. If there’s a minor bias in selecting scripts with roles black actors could potentially play, and a minor bias in casting black actors, and a minor bias in putting forward those actors for nominations, and a minor bias in nominating those put forward, and a minor bias in selecting a winner…it all adds up. Winning wouldn’t be an insurmountable obstacle but it would certainly be much harder to achieve for a black actor compared to a white one. And of course there’s the audience bias against minority actors (see: the kerfuffle over Mr Boyega), which will reinforce all those biases.
Personally I think the plan to reform the membership criteria for SAG will help, but a bigger help would be in casting more black actors in roles where the race of the actor isn’t material to the role.
rant omitted because what’s the fucking point
2 years is such a small sample, it doesn’t really tell us anything.
Also if we are saying 0 out of 5 in a category proves bias… then if 1 was nominated and we have 20% of the nominees are black, with 13% population… does that prove bias towards blacks?
Of course it doesn’t, but trying to prove a point either way based on such a small sampling proves nothing.
There may be bias… but it may be that in this 2 year run, the Academy felt that the top 5 artists in each category, none happened to be black.