# Oscars 2016



## Gromit (Jan 19, 2016)

The annual thread.

This year had seen calls for boycotts the same as last year for being lilly white.
Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett Smith have followed through on their threats.

Oscars head acts over lack of nominees' diversity - BBC News


> The profile of Oscar voters
> In 2012, the LA Times conducted a study to find out how diverse the Academy membership is.
> Reporters spoke to thousands of Academy members and their representatives to confirm the identities of more than 5,100 voters - more than 89% of the voting members.
> They found that:
> ...



Personally I don't think Straight out of Compton deserves a best picture nod. Its a essentially a puff piece produced by members of the band themselves. Doesn't go deep enough to deserve real critical acclaim. It could have probably earned a nod or two elsewhere mind.

I don't think Will Smith deserves an Oscar for putting on a accent either, which is about all he does, theres no acting genius going on here. He's a great actor and done far better work in other films. I'm not diss'ing him as an actor Its just this performance is not worthy of a nod.

Surely there are better films out there that could have landed some diversity onto this year's red carpet. Any suggestions?


----------



## felixthecat (Jan 19, 2016)

possibly Idris Elba in Beasts of No Nation.

The Oscars are a bit naff though.


----------



## zoooo (Jan 19, 2016)

Looking at those statistics, they do need to change up the voters.
They probably wouldn't have had a woman in best actor for years either if they weren't forced to by having separate groups of male and female nominations.


----------



## stdP (Jan 19, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Surely there are better films out there that could have landed some diversity onto this year's red carpet. Any suggestions?



Does Oscar Isaac (Guatemalan, and pun not intended) count...? Thought he was brilliant in Ex Machina and A Most Violent Year. Ditto Benicio Del Toro in Sicario (along with the rest of the cast TBH). I'm struggling to remember any good meaty roles even for white guys this year though, it felt pretty meh for cinema for me.

Unless he's nominated already; I haven't read the nominations as, as felixthecat points out, they're always a bit naff. You're pretty much guaranteed a win across the board if you have a film about a) the magic of Hollywood, b) the holocaust or c) the magic of Hollywood in the Holocaust.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 19, 2016)

stdP said:


> Does Oscar Isaac (Guatemalan, and pun not intended) You're pretty much guaranteed a win across the board if you have a film about a) the magic of Hollywood, b) the holocaust or c) the magic of Hollywood in the Holocaust.



I'd say that they love a true story, something about war / foreign conflict, stuff about 'The Biz' (doesn't have to be Hollywood per se.

Argo was a shoe in being a true story how The Biz rescued people from a foreign conflict.


----------



## hegley (Jan 19, 2016)

felixthecat said:


> possibly Idris Elba in Beasts of No Nation.
> 
> The Oscars are a bit naff though.


Don't think eligible as not a cinematic release?


----------



## D'wards (Jan 19, 2016)

Because its voted for, it'll be like the shy tories - people may be all diverse in public but vote how they really feel when it comes to the crunch.

Does anyone know if the votes are secret, or published?

I doubt all this talk of boycotts will achieve much - no one likes to be told off and hectored - will probably make the situation worse really. Those crusty old white men might just think "fuck em"


----------



## D'wards (Jan 19, 2016)

hegley said:


> Don't think eligible as not a cinematic release?


Yeah it is, but Confucius say Oscar voters snobby about it cos its a Netflix exclusive


----------



## 8den (Jan 19, 2016)

hegley said:


> Don't think eligible as not a cinematic release?



No it got a limited cinema release before the Netflix release to make it eligible for the Oscars/Awards.


----------



## 8den (Jan 19, 2016)

D'wards said:


> Because its voted for, it'll be like the shy tories - people may be all diverse in public but vote how they really feel when it comes to the crunch.
> 
> Does anyone know if the votes are secret, or published?
> 
> I doubt all this talk of boycotts will achieve much - no one likes to be told off and hectored - will probably make the situation worse really. Those crusty old white men might just think "fuck em"



It's secret only Academy members can vote.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jan 19, 2016)

D'wards said:


> Because its voted for, it'll be like the shy tories - people may be all diverse in public but vote how they really feel when it comes to the crunch.
> 
> Does anyone know if the votes are secret, or published?
> 
> I doubt all this talk of boycotts will achieve much - no one likes to be told off and hectored - will probably make the situation worse really. Those crusty old white men might just think "fuck em"



This is how to become and academy member:  Academy Membership

You have to sponsored by two current members.  That makes it difficult for them to admit anyone unlike themselves.  Its going to be hard to break up the status quo.


----------



## stdP (Jan 19, 2016)

Somewhat related for those who haven't seen it already: This Film Is Not Yet Rated. Documentary giving a rather a wry look at the surprisingly secretive world of the US film and TV rating system and worth the price of admission for the extended cut of Team America alone.


----------



## Reno (Jan 19, 2016)

The Academy is mostly full of old farts, but there haven't been any major films by black film makers with black actors which were obvious awards front runners this year. The question should be why there weren't more good films by/with people of colour before asking why nobody was nominated. There should be a lot me colour blind casting, there certainly are enough talented black people in the industry.

Jada Pinkett Smith was fine in Magic Mike XXL, but he film isn't exactly awards stuff. Spike Lee's new film was too polarising. Concussion starring Will Smith was engineered to be Oscar bait but it got terrible reviews and generated zero awards buzz. Straight Out Of Comptons was well received, but no better than 50 other films in 2015. None seem like a travesty for not getting nominated and there omissions which were more eyebrow raising than these (no best film or director nomination for the much admired Carol)


----------



## Gromit (Jan 20, 2016)

Reno said:


> The Academy is mostly full of old farts,



Well that problem might be due to two things I'm guessing:.

1. You have to have proved excellence in your field and despite you can be excellent at something while young there is an age prejudice that you have to have a load of experience under your belt before you have really proven excellence.
2.  Early on in your career you are chasing the awards, so you wouldn't be interested in sitting on a committee when you could be working towards the plaudits you crave.

I'm wondering as to whether Spike Lee is a member as if not why not? Is it cause he wants an Oscar first or because no one will sponsor him?
If he really is that upset about Lilly White Oscars then he is in a great position to fight it from the inside. Its hard to deny that he has shown excellence in his field.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 20, 2016)

Reno said:


> Spike Lee's new film was too polarising.


Have you seen this BTW? Im curious about it...i like a musical

eta: just watched the trailer and er maybe wont bother
people ripping it apart in the comments


----------



## Reno (Jan 20, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Well that problem might be due to two things I'm guessing:.
> 
> 1. You have to have proved excellence in your field and despite you can be excellent at something while young there is an age prejudice that you have to have a load of experience under your belt before you have really proven excellence.
> 2.  Early on in your career you are chasing the awards, so you wouldn't be interested in sitting on a committee when you could be working towards the plaudits you crave.
> ...



Spike Lee is a member. If you've ever been nominated for an Oscar, you automatically become a member, nobody needs to sponsor you. Lee has won an Oscar and been nominated a couple of times, so he more than qualifies. The idea that one of Hollywoods most famous directors can't find anybody in the industry to sponsor him is kind of funny though.

Most of the Academy members work in the industry in technical capacities and many of them are retired. It's not all glamorous films stars and famous directors, those only make up a tiny percentage of voters.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 20, 2016)

By new film are we referring to Chi Raq?

This IMDB review is interesting, Its made me reconsider watching the film:



> Chiraq - A Mediocre Movie Made Terrible by Ignoring Real Cries for Real Help
> 19 December 2015 | by Jon Red (robo042-1) (United States) – See all my reviews
> On it's own it's a goofy yet poignant musical. A little boring, if I'm being honest.
> 
> ...


----------



## Reno (Jan 20, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Have you seen this BTW? Im curious about it...i liek a musical
> 
> eta: just watched the trailer and er maybe wont bother
> people ripping it apart in the comments


No haven't seen it and I can't say I'm generally a huge fan of his films apart from the early ones. Chi-Raq has gotten him his best reviews in a couple of decades though.


----------



## 8den (Jan 20, 2016)

Reno said:


> The Academy is mostly full of old farts, but there haven't been any major films by black film makers with black actors which were obvious awards front runners this year. The question should be why there weren't more good films by/with people of colour before asking why nobody was nominated. There should be a lot me colour blind casting, there certainly are enough talented black people in the industry.
> 
> Jada Pinkett Smith was fine in Magic Mike XXL, but he film isn't exactly awards stuff. Spike Lee's new film was too polarising. Concussion starring Will Smith was engineered to be Oscar bait but it got terrible reviews and generated zero awards buzz. Straight Out Of Comptons was well received, but no better than 50 other films in 2015. None seem like a travesty for not getting nominated and there omissions which were more eyebrow raising than these (no best film or director nomination for the much admired Carol)



There's also Creed, which you think should have gotten it's Lead or Best supporting actress nods, or even it's director (note I've not seen Creed). 

The awards are quite bizarre, for example the Best Picture award is given to the films' Producer and is separate from the best Director award, I'm no fan of auteur theory but films getting a nomination for best Picture but not getting a nomination for best Director (the Martian). Really? 

Also keeping in mind the Academy members get to vote in all categories, so for example Cinematographers/Actors/Sound Designers have equal to Art Directors and Musicians and Editors on the voting for Best Editor/Best Visual Effects/Hair & Make & Best Actor. Each field is very specialised should and can Actors tell you which film was best Edited? Best Cinematographer? Should Editors vote on best Hair & make up. So you'll find very often the winner is the film with the "most" rather than the best. So the most striking production design, the most visually intense special effects, the "most" acted (ie the joke about actors prosthetics  or handicapped or mentally ill is really largely true) are the ones that win.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 20, 2016)

8den said:


> There's also Creed, which you think should have gotten it's Lead or Best supporting actress nods, or even it's director (note I've not seen Creed).
> 
> The awards are quite bizarre, for example the Best Picture award is given to the films' Producer and is separate from the best Director award, I'm no fan of auteur theory but films getting a nomination for best Picture but not getting a nomination for best Director (the Martian). Really?
> 
> Also keeping in mind the Academy members get to vote in all categories, so for example Cinematographers/Actors/Sound Designers have equal to Art Directors and Musicians and Editors on the voting for Best Editor/Best Visual Effects/Hair & Make & Best Actor. Each field is very specialised should and can Actors tell you which film was best Edited? Best Cinematographer? Should Editors vote on best Hair & make up. So you'll find very often the winner is the film with the "most" rather than the best. So the most striking production design, the most visually intense special effects, the "most" acted (ie the joke about actors prosthetics  or handicapped or mentally ill is really largely true) are the ones that win.



Creed is an excellent film. But its only the director's second feature and so he gets dismissed unfairly.
Stallone gets a nomination from it though.
Michael B. Jordan is worth a nod imo but it doesn't have those Oscar calling cards of him representing a true life character, quirky character or a dying swan scene.


----------



## Reno (Jan 20, 2016)

8den said:


> There's also Creed, which you think should have gotten it's Lead or Best supporting actress nods, or even it's director (note I've not seen Creed).
> 
> The awards are quite bizarre, for example the Best Picture award is given to the films' Producer and is separate from the best Director award, I'm no fan of auteur theory but films getting a nomination for best Picture but not getting a nomination for best Director (the Martian). Really?
> 
> Also keeping in mind the Academy members get to vote in all categories, so for example Cinematographers/Actors/Sound Designers have equal to Art Directors and Musicians and Editors on the voting for Best Editor/Best Visual Effects/Hair & Make & Best Actor. Each field is very specialised should and can Actors tell you which film was best Edited? Best Cinematographer? Should Editors vote on best Hair & make up. So you'll find very often the winner is the film with the "most" rather than the best. So the most striking production design, the most visually intense special effects, the "most" acted (ie the joke about actors prosthetics  or handicapped or mentally ill is really largely true) are the ones that win.


Yes, I though of Creed. It got good reviews but isn't quite up there with the contenders in the running for the major awards as sequels rarely get taken seriously enough. It snagged Stallone a supporting actor nod though. There are plenty more good films, filmmakers and actors which/who were worthy to be included this year and where race isn't an issue. I don't think anybody non-white with a major achievement in films has been overlooked because of race this year. Last year was more debatable when the black, female director for best film contender Selma wasn't nominated.

In the end it's all totally idiotic anyway and can't be taken seriously. I've never been hugely interested in the Oscars and stopped watching the show sometime in the early 80s as its a snooze fest anyway. I understand the outrage about the underrepresentation of artists of colour, but that should be about the industry in general.


----------



## 8den (Jan 20, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Creed is an excellent film. But its only the director's second feature and so he gets dismissed unfairly.
> Stallone gets a nomination from it though.
> Michael B. Jordan is worth a nod imo but it doesn't have those Oscar calling cards of him representing a true life character, quirky character or a dying swan scene.



Plenty of 1st & 2nd time directors have been nominated for an Oscar, thats specious reasoning.


----------



## 8den (Jan 20, 2016)

Reno said:


> Yes, I though of Creed. It got good reviews but isn't quite up there with the contenders in the running for the major awards as sequels rarely get taken seriously enough. It snagged Stallone a supporting actor nod though. There are plenty more good films, filmmakers and actors which/who were worthy to be included this year and where race isn't an issue. I don't think anybody non-white with a major achievement in films has been overlooked because of race this year. Last year was more debatable when the black, female director for best film contender Selma wasn't nominated.
> 
> In the end it's all totally idiotic anyway and can't be taken seriously. I've never been hugely interested in the Oscars and stopped watching the show sometime in the early 80s as its a snooze fest anyway. I understand the outrage about the underrepresentation of artists of colour, but that should be about the industry in general.



I'd agree with than, it's the old Keitel quote about Scorcese and Goodfellas; "exclusion from mediocrity"


----------



## Gromit (Jan 20, 2016)

Reno said:


> Yes, I though of Creed. It got good reviews but isn't quite up there with the contenders in the running for the major awards as sequels rarely get taken seriously enough.



Stallone argues that its not Rocky 7 but Creed 1.


----------



## Reno (Jan 20, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Stallone argues that its not Rocky 7 but Creed 1.


I don't give a shit what he argues, it's still a sequel. Actors and film makers will say whatever it takes to make their latest product sound more special. It's called publicity.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 20, 2016)

8den said:


> Plenty of 1st & 2nd time directors have been nominated for an Oscar, thats specious reasoning.



They have?! Which ones?


----------



## 8den (Jan 20, 2016)

Gromit said:


> They have?! Which ones?



Ever heard of a guy called Orson Welles?


Also Spike Jonze, Sam Mendes, & Mike Nichols, & there's more.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2016)

Gromit said:


> They have?! Which ones?


Sam Mendes, John Singleton, Orson Welles, Sydney Lumet, Kevin Costner, Kenneth Branagh, Spike Jonze, etc


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2016)

And Stallone was nominated for Rocky, his first screenplay


----------



## Gromit (Jan 20, 2016)

8den said:


> Ever heard of a guy called Orson Welles?
> 
> 
> Also Spike Jonze, Sam Mendes, & Mike Nichols, & there's more.



Hmm yeah. I stand corrected then.


----------



## hegley (Jan 20, 2016)

8den said:


> No it got a limited cinema release before the Netflix release to make it eligible for the Oscars/Awards.


Ah, didn't realise that.


----------



## souljacker (Jan 20, 2016)

The only good thing about the Oscars is the screener DVDs all pop up on torrent sites.


----------



## felixthecat (Jan 20, 2016)

I was talking to a friend of mine last night, a mixed race actor in Hollywood. His opinion is that the race issue being so pronounced this year is the media creating a tornado out of a gentle breeze because they missed a trick last year when Selma was dissed by the Academy, that it's not being taken seriously at ground level.
He then went on to have a full blown media rant so there may have been a bit of an agenda on his part....


----------



## D'wards (Jan 20, 2016)

felixthecat said:


> I was talking to a friend of mine last night, a mixed race actor in Hollywood. His opinion is that the race issue being so pronounced this year is the media creating a tornado out of a gentle breeze because they missed a trick last year when Selma was dissed by the Academy, that it's not being taken seriously at ground level.
> He then went on to have a full blown media rant so there may have been a bit of an agenda on his part....


There's a writer for the Guardian called Catherine Shoard who's very good on this stuff. She made the point that if you don't like "issue" films like Selma or Suffragette (and she didn't much like either) you feel you are being racist or sexist in some way, when in reality you just didn't like that particular film.

I know what she means, a film depictiong MLK just feels like it should be oscar nominated before a frame is even shot.

Catherine Shoard | The Guardian


----------



## D'wards (Jan 20, 2016)

Reno said:


> Yes, I though of Creed. It got good reviews but isn't quite up there with the contenders in the running for the major awards as sequels rarely get taken seriously enough. It snagged Stallone a supporting actor nod though.


 
I think Stallone will win, but it will be a "career" oscar rather than a performance one, like when Scorsese won for The Departed. We all love a bit of sweet old Sly these days.


----------



## Reno (Jan 20, 2016)

D'wards said:


> There's a writer for the Guardian called Catherine Shoard who's very good on this stuff. She made the point that if you don't like "issue" films like Selma or Suffragette (and she didn't much like either) you feel you are being racist or sexist in some way, when in reality you just didn't like that particular film.
> 
> I know what she means, a film depictiong MLK just feels like it should be oscar nominated before a frame is even shot.
> 
> Catherine Shoard | The Guardian


Very true. I am one of these people who generally doesn't like issue films which is one reason why I find the mainstream awards shows so uninteresting. I just don't think dramatic films are the best way of get issues across because due to their running time they have to be manipulative and fairly simplistic and they rarely are interesting on a level of of film making. I prefer a book or documentary when it comes to issues.


----------



## belboid (Jan 20, 2016)

Reno said:


> The Academy is mostly full of old farts, but there haven't been any major films by black film makers with black actors which were obvious awards front runners this year. The question should be why there weren't more good films by/with people of colour before asking why nobody was nominated. There should be a lot me colour blind casting, there certainly are enough talented black people in the industry.
> 
> Jada Pinkett Smith was fine in Magic Mike XXL, but he film isn't exactly awards stuff. Spike Lee's new film was too polarising. Concussion starring Will Smith was engineered to be Oscar bait but it got terrible reviews and generated zero awards buzz. Straight Out Of Comptons was well received, but no better than 50 other films in 2015. None seem like a travesty for not getting nominated and there omissions which were more eyebrow raising than these (no best film or director nomination for the much admired Carol)


this is all true, but when you look at some of the tedious stuff that _has _been nominated, the lack of black faces does stand out. Oscar bait like Spotlight, the tedious Steve Jobs....It was even more noticeable last year, with some truly tedious acting nods


----------



## Reno (Jan 20, 2016)

belboid said:


> this is all true, but when you look at some of the tedious stuff that _has _been nominated, the lack of black faces does stand out. Oscar bait like Spotlight, the tedious Steve Jobs....It was even more noticeable last year, with some truly tedious acting nods



True and there are plenty of films nominated I dislike, don't want to see or find wildly overrated and yes, of course they could have nominated Creed for lead actor and director. I also think the publicity this gets is a good thing.  

I haven't seen the new Star Wars film but I do think its a good thing that it has  a far more diverse leads than previous Star Wars films. Not awards fodder, but this type of colour blind casting is what needs to happen much more. And Mad Max had a female disabled lead (though not played by a disabled actor), so maybe there is change afoot.

The line will still be drawn for a while at gay and trans movie lead characters in blockbusters which aren't about the issue of sexuality.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jan 20, 2016)

hegley said:


> Don't think eligible as not a cinematic release?



It did get a limited cinema release.


----------



## D'wards (Jan 20, 2016)

Interesting, before this latest greatest (Twitter) outrage The Guardian had their writers choose their own shortlists - not many black faces on there either.

I reckon it might be a bit different if you asked them again, being The Guardian an all.

And the Oscar goes to (or it should anyway)


----------



## Reno (Jan 20, 2016)

Apart from all the kerfuffle about lack of representation, there is one nomination I am invested in, which is Charlotte Rampling for _45 Years. _My favorite living actress finally got acknowledged by the Oscars for a great performance in a fantastic film (which should have been nominated for best picture). Of course she won't win, but still...


----------



## belboid (Jan 20, 2016)

D'wards said:


> not many black faces on there either.


pretty much one in every main category, including two acting winners, which would be the first time ever two black actors won awards in the same year, i think


----------



## Reno (Jan 20, 2016)

D'wards said:


> Interesting, before this latest greatest (Twitter) outrage The Guardian had their writers choose their own shortlists - not many black faces on there either.
> 
> I reckon it might be a bit different if you asked them again, being The Guardian an all.
> 
> And the Oscar goes to (or it should anyway)



Several actually: Girlhood, Tangerine (black, trans = double minority !), Beasts of No Nation, Jada Pinkett Smith for Magic Mike XXL. Girlhood which has a mostly black, female cast turns up on several lists.


----------



## D'wards (Jan 20, 2016)

Yeah, point taken -i was more thinking of those films that have been mooted as should have been given nods in this latest furore - Idris Elba only makes one list


----------



## bi0boy (Jan 20, 2016)

Some gay people overlooked too : Alexis Arquette calls out 'gay' Will and Jada Smith


----------



## Reno (Jan 20, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Some gay people overlooked too : Alexis Arquette calls out 'gay' Will and Jada Smith


Bless her.


----------



## D'wards (Jan 22, 2016)

Charlotte Rampling weighs in.

What happens if there's not enough decent performances by black actors next year 

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


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 22, 2016)

D'wards said:


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



Well that's a good way to make sure you don't win an oscar. Say something incredibly pointless and ignorant.


----------



## Reno (Jan 22, 2016)

Oh, Charlotte !


----------



## D'wards (Jan 25, 2016)

Interesting breakdown of Oscar nominees/winners by race - blacks do well statistically. But the asians 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2016/01/film-and-race


----------



## Gromit (Jan 25, 2016)

D'wards said:


> Interesting breakdown of Oscar nominees/winners by race - blacks do well statistically. But the asians
> 
> http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2016/01/film-and-race



Actually its the latinos who are really getting screwed if that bar graph is correct.

Do blacks really only make about 13% of the US population? That surprises me. I always assumed it was more.

A quick search reveals:

In 2013, the population of African Americans including those of more than one race was estimated at 45 million, making up 15.2% of the total U.S. population.
Those who identified only as African American made up 13.2% of the U.S. population-over 41.7 million people.

Looks like that bar chart used the low figure, slightly naughty.
Still less than i assumed.


----------



## D'wards (Jan 27, 2016)

I think this whole thing is a little ridiculous. It looks awful on paper that no blacks were nominated (no one really give a fuck about the asians and latinos). But when you look at the actual nuances of it it makes sense - the only person who may have been nominated would be Idris Elba, but seeing as his film was a Netflix affair, and it is thought "Hollywood" sees this as the enemy, as they need bums on seats in actual cinemas.
Ian McKellan has now said the Oscars are homophobic because no openly gay person has ever won a best actor/actress one.
The Academy does definitely respond to pressure though -  they felt it was about time a female director won one so the very average Hurt Locker won. When there was an outcry about a black actor not winning one for ages, hey presto, Denzil Washington and Halle Berry win in the same year.


----------



## belboid (Jan 27, 2016)

D'wards said:


> I think this whole thing is a little ridiculous. It looks awful on paper that no blacks were nominated (no one really give a fuck about the asians and latinos). But when you look at the actual nuances of it it makes sense - the only person who may have been nominated would be Idris Elba, but seeing as his film was a Netflix affair, and it is thought "Hollywood" sees this as the enemy, as they need bums on seats in actual cinemas.
> Ian McKellan has now said the Oscars are homophobic because no openly gay person has ever won a best actor/actress one.
> The Academy does definitely respond to pressure though -  they felt it was about time a female director won one so the very average Hurt Locker won. When there was an outcry about a black actor not winning one for ages, hey presto, Denzil Washington and Halle Berry win in the same year.


you're an idiot


----------



## Reno (Jan 27, 2016)

belboid said:


> you're an idiot


I think I said pretty much the same thing earlier on though. With this it's all how one phrases it I suppose. Charlotte Rampling ran foul of that. She expressed essentially the same sentiment, only she did it really clumsily.

In the end I agree that there weren't any achievements by black artists which were unfairly overlooked, at least not more so than those of many white artists which also didn't get nominated. There was some very good work, but nothing truly outstanding, though I suppose that can be argued with. The problem isn't with the Oscars, the problem lies with that not many black actors and film makers get the roles/projects they should be doing and that's what is racist. Not the lack of Oscar nominations.


----------



## belboid (Jan 27, 2016)

You never said anything as silly as:

"When there was an outcry about a black actor not winning one for ages, hey presto, Denzil Washington and Halle Berry win in the same year.!


----------



## Reno (Jan 27, 2016)

belboid said:


> You never said anything as silly as:
> 
> "When there was an outcry about a black actor not winning one for ages, hey presto, Denzil Washington and Halle Berry win in the same year.!


I don't remember the outcry before and can't confirm or deny that, I don't have enough interest in the Oscars. Shame they handed the Oscar for best female performance to a really bad actress that year though.


----------



## D'wards (Jan 27, 2016)

belboid said:


> You never said anything as silly as:
> 
> "When there was an outcry about a black actor not winning one for ages, hey presto, Denzil Washington and Halle Berry win in the same year.!


Why don't you actually look at the realities of things before blindly toeing the party line?

Did Denzil Washington really deserve Best Actor for Training Day? Really?

Did Scorsese deserve the Oscar for The Departed? Will Stallone deserve the Oscar for Creed? Winning is not always about the best performance...


----------



## Reno (Jan 27, 2016)

Much of the Oscars is about politics, not about achivement and I don't even mean race. Much admired actors who have never won will often get their Oscar for an undeserving performance because it was their time. This year alone several actors got nominated in the wrong category. Rooney Mara and Alice Vikander played lead roles, but got nominated as supporting actresses.


----------



## D'wards (Jan 27, 2016)

Reno said:


> Much of the Oscars is about politics, not about achivement and I don't even mean race. Much admired actors who have never won will often get their Oscar for an undeserving performance because it was their time. This year alone several actors got nominated in the wrong category. Rooney Mara and Alice Vikander played lead roles, but got nominated as supporting actresses.


Leonardo only had to put in a half decent performance this year to win.


----------



## belboid (Jan 27, 2016)

Has anyone ever said the Oscars go to the most deserving recipient?  No, everyone knows they are all sorts of bollocks, with buggins turns and outright tokenism often to the fore. There were plenty of potential non-white nominees this year (and the hashtag is #OscarsSoWhite, not #OscarsUnfairToBlackPeopleButWhoCaresAboutLatinos), way beyond Elba - Jackson, del Toro, Jordan, anyone in the cast of Tangerine.  But we do get nominations for the very straight and uninspired performances from Fassbender and Winslett in Steve Jobs, or Stallone for Creed. That _they _are on the recieving end of the tokenism indicates the academies racist bias.


----------



## Reno (Jan 27, 2016)

belboid said:


> Has anyone ever said the Oscars go to the most deserving recipient?  No, everyone knows they are all sorts of bollocks, with buggins turns and outright tokenism often to the fore. There were plenty of potential non-white nominees this year (and the hashtag is #OscarsSoWhite, not #OscarsUnfairToBlackPeopleButWhoCaresAboutLatinos), way beyond Elba - Jackson, del Toro, Jordan, anyone in the cast of Tangerine.  But we do get nominations for the very straight and uninspired performances from Fassbender and Winslett in Steve Jobs, or Stallone for Creed. That _they _are on the recieving end of the tokenism indicates the academies racist bias.


Getting into personal opinions about performances will just run in circles. There is no consensus that the nominated performances were undeserving. Sure, they could have nominated performances by African American or Latin actors which nobody would have quibbled with, but then they could have also nominated several more white performers too which I think were deserving.

I disagree that not nominating black actors this year proves that the academy is racist, however it proves that the Hollywood film industry is.


----------



## belboid (Jan 27, 2016)

Reno said:


> I disagree that not nominating black actors this year proves that the academy is racist, however it proves that the Hollywood film industry is.


it's kind of like the Bechdel Test - one film not passing doesn't make that film sexist, but 70% of Hollywood output not passing shows quite clearly that the system is. The Oscars are another representation of that.  Which does make them racist, even if 'only' as a reflection of the wider racism within the system.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 27, 2016)

The existence of that Steve Jobs film mystifies me. Just who wants to watch a biopic of a computer salesman?


----------



## Reno (Jan 27, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> The existence of that Steve Jobs film mystifies me. Just who wants to watch a biopic of a computer salesman?


You could say the same about Citizen Kane. Why would anybody make a film about a newspaper salesman ?

I haven't seen the film yet, but from what I read it's not a straightforward cradle to grave biopic, it uses three specific points in Steve Jobs career and apparently it's far from flattering. The Social Network used David Zuckerberg to explore the idea of intellectual property rather than being a biopic, so I think this does something similar.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 27, 2016)

I found The Social Network a big heap of boring too.


----------



## Reno (Jan 27, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I found The Social Network a big heap of boring too.


Maybe skip "Steve Jobs" then. I'm moderately intrigued.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 27, 2016)

Reno said:


> I haven't seen the new Star Wars film but I do think its a good thing that it has  a far more diverse leads than previous Star Wars films. Not awards fodder, but this type of _colour blind casting_ is what needs to happen much more.


This is the key, isn't it? How many black actors are cast for parts where race is irrelevant? Hardly any - being black is a 'thing', where being white isn't. 

This is also where a system whose casting is based on star rating operating within a racist society is bound to reflect that society's racism. How many black stars are there who will be cast for parts where race is irrelevant? Will Smith. Anyone else? 

It's depressing to see how many films are still made where there very clearly isn't colour-blind casting. As I think you said, you might not be able to identify the problem just from one film, but the pattern across Hollywood is really clear, and how many people seem to care?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jan 27, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How many black stars are there who will be cast for parts where race is irrelevant? Will Smith. Anyone else?



Denzel, but that's it I think.


----------



## D'wards (Jan 27, 2016)

I've noticed in the last year or two that a lot of adverts feature inter racial couples (always one black and one white partner), whereas a few years ago they did not. Hopefully this is leading to a trend for film-makers to totally ignore race when casting, unless the race is pivotal to the role of course.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 27, 2016)

The phenomenon is most noticeable, I think, in sci-fi, in which nearly all the characters are race-irrelevant. I've seen a chart showing the number of sci-fi films with black actors in leading roles, and there are some but not many. Then you look a bit closer and see that those 'some' are nearly all Will Smith!

An example I watched the other day: Interstellar. Set in the near-future, and any of the characters could have been black. But none of the leading roles were. There was one token black scientist, who had no backstory to speak of, no emotional complexity. No change since the 70s really, except perhaps that he was the second one to get killed, rather than the first.


----------



## Reno (Jan 27, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How many black stars are there who will be cast for parts where race is irrelevant? Will Smith. Anyone else?





TheHoodedClaw said:


> Denzel, but that's it I think.



Female black actors often get cast in roles where race isn't an issue. Thandie Newton (Mission Impossibe II, 2012, The Truth About Charlie, Vanishing on 7th St, Retreat), Paula Patton (Mission Impossible 4, Deja Vu, Mirrors), Halle Berry (Die Another Day, The Call, etc) and a few others.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 27, 2016)

Reno said:


> Female black actors often get cast in roles where race isn't an issue. Thandie Newton (Mission Impossibe II, 2012, The Truth About Charlie, Vanishing on 7th St, Retreat), Paula Patton (Mission Impossible 4, Deja Vu, Mirrors), Halle Berry (Die Another Day, The Call, etc) and a few others.


Probably not coincidentally, all three of these are mixed-race with one white parent. 

There's another phenomenon here. Halle Berry also gets cast in roles that are race-specific - black. Then you get a mixed-race-specific role given to a white actor like Angelina Jolie...


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jan 27, 2016)

D'wards said:


> I've noticed in the last year or two that a lot of adverts feature inter racial couples (always one black and one white partner), whereas a few years ago they did not. Hopefully this is leading to a trend for film-makers to totally ignore race when casting, unless the race is pivotal to the role of course.



I've noticed that as well.  However, I don't think the casting of those adverts was at all race neutral.  They intended to portray of mixed race couple to pander to the growing percentage of such families.  That way they can pretend to be race neutral, without all that pesky fairness getting in the way.


----------



## belboid (Jan 27, 2016)

Samuel L is getting a few of those roles too, now (Nick Fury, most notably)


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jan 27, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> The existence of that Steve Jobs film mystifies me. Just who wants to watch a biopic of a computer salesman?



Especially him.  By all accounts he was an ass personally.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jan 27, 2016)

D'wards said:


> Interesting breakdown of Oscar nominees/winners by race - blacks do well statistically. But the asians
> 
> http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2016/01/film-and-race



Or, as one comedian put it "Wow!  I get to grow up to be an extra on MASH."


----------



## Reno (Jan 27, 2016)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> Especially him.  By all accounts he was an ass personally.


That's kind of what the film is about though. It's not flattering to him.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 27, 2016)

I believe that i have an idea that will guarantee Denzil Washington an Oscar.

He should do a film about Shirley Chisholm the first African American congresswoman. The first African American to run for president. The first woman to run for president. Before Hillary Clinton, there was Shirley Chisholm - BBC News

He looks a bit like her and the Academy loves gender crossing performances. Tootsie got ten nominations. Boys don't cry got Swank an Oscar.
Unfortunately my ability to write a screenplay about being a black women in politics is severely hindered so i can't cash in on this idea.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 27, 2016)

I'm sure that post seemed like a good idea in your head.


----------



## ffsear (Feb 1, 2016)

Poor Hollywood a-Listers, life must be tough.


----------



## Reno (Feb 1, 2016)

ffsear said:


> Poor Hollywood a-Listers, life must be tough.


I don't think Michael B. Jordan is an A-lister quite yet and if racism stops him from getting decent roles, he'll never get there. That goes for a lot of people of colour in Hollywood who are far from A-list and who just want to work.


----------



## ffsear (Feb 1, 2016)

Reno said:


> I don't think Michael B. Jordan is an A-lister quite yet and if racism stops him from getting decent roles, he'll never get there. That goes for a lot of people of colour in Hollywood who are far from A-list and who just want to work.



You've taken first world problems to a whole new level there pal!


----------



## Reno (Feb 1, 2016)

ffsear said:


> You've taken first world problems to a whole new level there pal!


Sorry, I had not realised racism was a first world problem. Silly me !

BTW, I'm not your pal.


----------



## ffsear (Feb 1, 2016)

Reno said:


> Sorry, I had not realised racism was a first world problem. Silly me !



Were discussing Hollywood,  not the world.   Am i allowed to say that i didn't think Michael B. Jordan's performance was worthy of an Oscar nomination?  or does that automatically make me racist?



Reno said:


> BTW, I'm not your pal.



Its a figure of speech


----------



## Gromit (Feb 1, 2016)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Denzel, but that's it I think.


Danny Glover
Morgan Freeman
Laurence Fishburne
James Earl Jones
Idris Elba


----------



## Reno (Feb 1, 2016)

ffsear said:


> Were discussing Hollywood,  not the world.   Am i allowed to say that i didn't think Michael B. Jordan's performance was worthy of an Oscar nomination?  or does that automatically make me racist!



I'll just be charitable and assume you've blundered into a discussion where you have no idea what the issues at stake are. Maybe read the thread and get an idea where people stand on this. Got more important things to do than to repeat all of it for your benefit.


----------



## ffsear (Feb 1, 2016)

I'll just be charitable.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Danny Glover
> Morgan Freeman
> Laurence Fishburne
> James Earl Jones
> Idris Elba


Before your list gets much longer, I think maybe I ought to clarify the point. Black actors cast in leading roles (star roles) in colour-blind casting (race of the character is not relevant to the story, so an actor of any race can be cast). Most lead roles in most films are characters that are not really in any way race-specific, so the scope for such casting is considerable.


----------



## felixthecat (Feb 1, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Idris Elba



So bloody glad he got a nod from the Screen Actors Guild - very well deserved Best Support Actor award imo.


----------



## Gromit (Feb 1, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Before your list gets much longer, I think maybe I ought to clarify the point. Black actors cast in leading roles (star roles) in colour-blind casting (race of the character is not relevant to the story, so an actor of any race can be cast). Most lead roles in most films are characters that are not really in any way race-specific, so the scope for such casting is considerable.



Has to be a lead? What about films with no obvious lead such as Prometheus?

Oh and does it have to be big screen?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 1, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Has to be a lead? What about films with no obvious lead such as Prometheus?
> 
> Oh and does it have to be big screen?


I'm also not claiming that there are no exceptions. The existence of exceptions doesn't disprove the point. 

As for your addition, I was talking about movies primarily yes. One of the points here is the star system, which reproduces the prejudices of US society, including its racism, in the way it calculates a star's value.


----------



## Reno (Feb 1, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Danny Glover
> Morgan Freeman
> Laurence Fishburne
> James Earl Jones
> Idris Elba





Gromit said:


> Has to be a lead? What about films with no obvious lead such as Prometheus?
> 
> Oh and does it have to be big screen?



What I'd like to know is why there are no women on that list ?


----------



## Gromit (Feb 1, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm also not claiming that there are no exceptions. The existence of exceptions doesn't disprove the point.
> 
> As for your addition, I was talking about movies primarily yes. One of the points here is the star system, which reproduces the prejudices of US society, including its racism, in the way it calculates a star's value.



But funnily enough where once upon a time movies were the great big be all and end all for actors the big pay days have moved to TV shows (which were previously the poor relations).

If you really want to ride the gravy train you want to get yourself a 24 or House.


----------



## Gromit (Feb 1, 2016)

Reno said:


> What I'd like to know is why there are no women on that list ?



Someone else had already covered it. But that was before Lead was specified.
Its going to be harder again obviously as fewer movies have female leads.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 1, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> The existence of that Steve Jobs film mystifies me. Just who wants to watch a biopic of a computer salesman?



It bombed at the box office, so apparently nobody wants to see a biopic of a computer salesman.

Why anyone wanted to make a film about such an odious little turd of a man in the first place is anyone's guess.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 1, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Has to be a lead? What about films with no obvious lead such as Prometheus?



Nobody was winning any acting oscars for that movie.


----------



## ffsear (Feb 1, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Nobody was winning any acting oscars for that movie.




I thought Michael Fassbender was good.


----------



## D'wards (Feb 1, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Has to be a lead? What about films with no obvious lead such as Prometheus?


It has been mentioned that Spotlight (which I haven't seen) has no leads but an ensemble cast of outstanding performances - this doesn't fit in with the awards format, but may well contain four of the ten best performances this year


----------



## Reno (Feb 1, 2016)

Gromit said:


> But funnily enough where once upon a time movies were the great big be all and end all for actors the big pay days have moved to TV shows (which were previously the poor relations).
> 
> If you really want to ride the gravy train you want to get yourself a 24 or House.


The reason why film actors move to TV is not "the big pay day" it's because the work is generally more rewarding because serious drama for adults and therefore good acting parts have moved to television. Only a small percentage of actors on TV get paid the much publicised huge amounts of money. A star will get a lot of money whether they do a film or a TV show. When they do TV they also have to work a lot more and a lot longer hours than on a film, so they get compensated for those scheduleS.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 1, 2016)

I don't know why you bother with him!


----------



## D'wards (Feb 26, 2016)

Jamie Foxx weighs in

Jamie Foxx: black stars – including Will Smith – need to #actbetter to win Oscars


----------



## Reno (Feb 26, 2016)

Anohni, formerly known as Antony Hegarty is boycotting the Oscars too:

Transgender Oscar Nominee Anohni Writes Powerful Boycott Letter

...and I think her open letter as to why is really great:

Anohni: Why I Am Not Attending the Academy Awards

Anohni has been nominated for Best Song, but unlike some more commercially viable pop stars has not been invited to get on stage and perform their song. Fairly shitty and I'd say what the Academy did to transgender artists this year was worse than what it did to black artists. They nominated a (white) male cis actor for doing an insultingly poor job in portraying a transgender woman (apparently that's a really brave thing to do!), while ignoring the widely praised performance by (black) transgender actress Kitana Kiti Rodriguez in Tangerine (and unlike with Will Smith there actually was Oscar buzz). And then on top of it they regard Anohni as too niche/weird to get on stage to perform her Oscar nominated song, like she should be heard but not seen.

Not nominating minority artists is one thing, but rewarding a minstrel job over a deserving minority artist and then insulting an Oscar nominee from that same minority is quite another.


----------



## Gromit (Feb 26, 2016)

Reno said:


> Anohni, formerly known as Antony Hegarty is boycotting the Oscars too:
> 
> Transgender Oscar Nominee Anohni Writes Powerful Boycott Letter
> 
> ...





> I want to be clear — I know that I wasn’t excluded from the performance directly because I am transgendered. I was not invited to perform because I am relatively unknown in the U.S., singing a song about ecocide, and that might not sell advertising space. It is not me that is picking the performers for the night, and I know that I don't have an automatic right to be asked.



You seem to have missed the main point of that open letter. The Oscars are endemic of America. Its all about the money money money.  Anohni don't bring enough bank. If she brought enough bank the Oscars wouldn't be begging her to perform. She objecting to that shit.



> I brought my earnings from around the world home to New York City and paid my taxes. That money was spent by the U.S. government on Guantanamo Bay, drone bombs, surveillance, capital punishment, prisons for whistleblowers, corporate subsidies and bank bailouts.
> 
> In the United States it is all about money: those who have it and those who don't. Identity politics are often used as a smokescreen to distract us from this viral culture of wealth extraction. When we are not extracting wealth from nature, we are extracting it from the working and middle classes.



I approve of the boycott for these reasons..


----------



## Reno (Feb 26, 2016)

Gromit said:


> You seem to have missed the main point of that open letter. The Oscars are endemic of America. Its all about the money money money.  Anohni don't bring enough bank. If she brought enough bank the Oscars wouldn't be begging her to perform. She objecting to that shit.
> 
> 
> 
> I approve of the boycott for these reasons..


How did I miss the main point ?


----------



## Gromit (Feb 26, 2016)

Reno said:


> How did I miss the main point ?



"Identity politics are often used as a smokescreen to distract us from this viral culture of wealth extraction."

You just fell for the smokescreen by making your post about the gender politics.


----------



## Reno (Feb 26, 2016)

Gromit said:


> "Identity politics are often used as a smokescreen to distract us from this viral culture of wealth extraction."
> 
> You just fell for the smokescreen by making your post about the gender politics.


I never said she wasn't included because she is trans. I actually stated that she was left out in favour of more commercially viable artists. That still doesn't change the fact that transwomen were treated poorly by the Academy this year and not having her perform is especially insensitive in a year where they nominated a cis actor who has come in for a lot of criticism for doing a poor trans-impersonation over an acclaimed performance by a trans actress. Nominating artists is down to Academy voters and that can't be controlled, but not having Anohni perform is down to the people who run the Oscar ceremony, so that was hugely undiplomatic considering the hot water the Academy is in over shutting out minorities.


----------



## Gromit (Feb 26, 2016)

Reno said:


> I never said she wasn't included because she is trans. I actually stated that she was left out in favour of more commercially viable artists. That still doesn't change the fact that transwomen were treated poorly by the Academy this year and not having her perform is especially insensitive in a year where they nominated a cis actor doing a poor trans-impersonation over a trans actress. Nominating artists is down to Academy voters and that can't be controlled, but not having Anohni perform is down to the people who run the Oscar ceremony, so that was hugely undiplomatic considering the hot water the Academy is in over shutting out minorities.



You started with it briefly and then went into gender politics.
In this post you once again  mention it in half a sentence but a whole paragraph on gender politics. Not about the money.


----------



## Reno (Feb 26, 2016)

Gromit said:


> You started with it briefly and then went into gender politics.
> In this post you once again  mention it in half a sentence but a whole paragraph on gender politics. Not about the money.


If you can't see that the two things are related then you are even more of an idiot than I thought.


----------



## Sirena (Feb 26, 2016)




----------



## belboid (Feb 27, 2016)

Having now watched almost all of the main movies now (still missing Trumbo, Creed, Sicario & Straight Outta Compton, and almost all the documentaries and shorts), I can make my wild choices (from films nominated) and predictions:

Best Film
Should be - Room
Will be - Spotlight

Director
Should be - Innaritu
Will be - Innaritu

Actor
Should be -Brian Cranston  (none of the others are deserving, so, by a process of elimination...)
Will be - Leo

Actress
Should be - Brie Larson
Will be - Brie Larson

Supporting Actor
Should be - Mark Rylance
Will be - Sylvester Stallone

Supporting Actress
Should be - Alicia Vikander (with commiserations to Rooney Mara)
Will be - Alicia Vikander

Original Screenplay
Should be - Ex Machina
Will be - Spotlight

Adapted Screenplay
Should be - Room
Will be - The Big Short

Cinematography
Should be - The Revenant
Will be - The Revenant

Animated Feature
Should be - Inside Out (okay, it's the only one I've seen)
Will be - Inside Out

Film Editing
Should be - The Big Short
Will be - Mad Max

Sound Editing
Should be - Star Wars
Will be - Mad Max

Visual Effects
Should be - Star Wars
Will be - Star Wars

Production Design
Should be - Mad Max
Will be - Mad Max

Costume
Should be - Mad Max
Will be - Mad Max (unless Cinderella did something astounding I'm unaware of)

Foreign Language Film
Actually, I've seen none of these, in what is a first for many years.  Not sure how many are even out here yet.

Special Award for Film Not Even Nominated for Anything
Diary of a Teenage Girl


----------



## Me76 (Feb 27, 2016)

I am staying up to watch tomorrow night and the only thing nominated that I've seen is Amy. 

I do have free Google play credits so could watch The Martian tomorrow, but not sure I'll get the chance. 

I don't care though. I like the specticle and staying up eating doritos and drinking champagne.


----------



## felixthecat (Feb 27, 2016)

I will watch it too. I have a friend nominated and I would love to see him win. Even if he doesn't - the nomination is a recognition.


----------



## Me76 (Feb 28, 2016)

So I'm watching the preview.   Who else is with me?

Glad Zoe Ball is in there


----------



## belboid (Feb 29, 2016)

Yup - decent opening monologue.

2/2 for my predictions thus far


----------



## Me76 (Feb 29, 2016)

I don't like Chris Rock, but thought his opening was brill.


----------



## Me76 (Feb 29, 2016)

Proper LOL!!   Taking the piss big time.  Love it


----------



## Me76 (Feb 29, 2016)

Loving Mad Max killing it


----------



## belboid (Feb 29, 2016)

Visual effects a surprise, but otherwise I'm pretty much on track


----------



## felixthecat (Feb 29, 2016)

felixthecat said:


> I will watch it too. I have a friend nominated and I would love to see him win. Even if he doesn't - the nomination is a recognition.



Bugger. Didn't win


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 29, 2016)

Sobbed like a fucker at the Lady Gaga piece.


----------



## Maltin (Feb 29, 2016)

Very happy that Spotlight won Best Picture even though it was its only win of the night (ETA - except the very first one for original screenplay!). I thought it was the best film of the year with the best story and excellent acting all round. Surprised that the other comments on this website about it have been fairly unimpressed/underwhelmed.

Thought the later wins were going to lead to a win for The Revenant, which despite being very pretty, I don't think was as good.

Very happy too for the awards for Mad Max.  Would have been happy if it had gone on to win Best picture, as well as best director for George Miller, but coming out as the most wins of the night is a decent outcome.

Was impressed by Chris Rock as the host and the general focus on the Oscarsowhite issue, which I thought they dealt with reasonably well.


----------



## Maltin (Feb 29, 2016)

belboid said:


> Having now watched almost all of the main movies now (still missing Trumbo, Creed, Sicario & Straight Outta Compton, and almost all the documentaries and shorts), I can make my wild choices (from films nominated) and predictions:
> 
> Best Film
> Should be - Room
> ...


Pretty impressive that you got 13 out of the 15 you listed. And one of the wrong ones, you thought it should be the eventual winner ( which was also one where I felt the acad my might be nostalgic rather than voting for Rylance.

On the categories you mention, I was surprised (and happy) for the love for Mad Max. Thought many of those awards would go to Star Wars.


----------



## Mation (Feb 29, 2016)

Maltin said:


> Was impressed by Chris Rock as the host and the general focus on the Oscarsowhite issue, which I thought they dealt with reasonably well.


People went to it and people watched it on telly. Therefore, it doesn't matter that black people weren't nominated. Who cares? I mean, more than a little bit - just enough to say, oh isn't that terrible. The show goes on anyway. People love it anyway. Ultimately, it really doesn't matter.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 29, 2016)

Looks like the real winner was belboid with his predictions. I would've liked to see Bryan Cranston get best actor too but that was never gonna happen.

Good to see Mad Max beating Star Wars for production design, ditto Ex Machina for visual effects.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 29, 2016)

I'm rubbish at seeing Oscar-nominated (and any) films until far too late, but the one I really wanted to see (even before last night) was Amy. Worth its award, do people think?

ETA : Just checking this Amy thread now ...


----------



## skyscraper101 (Feb 29, 2016)

I may have to try Mad Max again, I ended up falling asleep while watching it last time out of sheer boredom over the non-stop-action sequences, plus I was on a plane and tired.


----------



## D'wards (Feb 29, 2016)

On the Guardian podcast they discussed that next year's Oscars may be crammed with black nominees as a result of the #oscarsowhite scandal, and that it will be seen as a pity-vote and will cast doubt on the reasons for the nominations for the actors, which will be worse than not having any black actors i feel.

Time will tell


----------



## Gromit (Feb 29, 2016)

Vintage Paw said:


> Sobbed like a fucker at the Lady Gaga piece.


It was at that point I knew Spotlight had won best picture.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 29, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> I'm rubbish at seeing Oscar-nominated (and any) films until far too late, but the one I really wanted to see (even before last night) was Amy. Worth its award, do people think?
> 
> ETA : Just checking this Amy thread now ...



I loved Amy, really great film, definitely worth seeing...


----------



## Lord Camomile (Feb 29, 2016)

William of Walworth said:


> I'm rubbish at seeing Oscar-nominated (and any) films until far too late, but the one I really wanted to see (even before last night) was Amy. Worth its award, do people think?
> 
> ETA : Just checking this Amy thread now ...


I've seen Amy and haven't seen The Look Of Silence (yet, it's on my DVD pile), and while the former is a very good doc I'm a bit pissed that Oppenheimer has now been nominated twice (first time for The Act of Killing) and not won.

Ach, to be honest I'm just pissed The Act of Killing didn't win, I've no idea if Silence is a better film than Amy


----------



## D'wards (Feb 29, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> I loved Amy, really great film, definitely worth seeing...


Amy was a good film, and I am a massive fan of her, and followed her demise quite closely as it was happening. Therefore I can tell the film is definitely a bit of a hagiography - she simply loved the drugs first and foremost, and they have been the ruin of many a man.


----------



## Maltin (Feb 29, 2016)

felixthecat said:


> I will watch it too. I have a friend nominated and I would love to see him win. Even if he doesn't - the nomination is a recognition.


Did he win?


----------



## Mation (Feb 29, 2016)

D'wards said:


> On the Guardian podcast they discussed that next year's Oscars may be crammed with black nominees as a result of the #oscarsowhite scandal, and that it will be seen as a pity-vote and will cast doubt on the reasons for the nominations for the actors, which will be worse than not having any black actors i feel.
> 
> Time will tell


I think the chances of next year's Oscars being crammed with black nominees are minimal. There's no reason to do it. This year especially has shown that most white people's commitment to anti-racism doesn't even extend as far as not watching a bit of telly. The money still rolls in. That's the important thing.

But if there were to be a glut of black nominees, whether they were seen as having received a pity vote would depend on whether the performances etc were any good, no? Unless people actually think that this year there weren't any because black people really weren't talented enough.


----------



## Reno (Feb 29, 2016)

There won't be lots of nominated black artist because the films which are going to get nominated for 2017 are already in the can or in production and they are unlikely to have employed a massive amount of black people. The Academy may just be aware to nominate a deserving black artist over a deserving white one next year, now that it's been pointed out. 

Maybe in the long run non-Caucasian artists are given more opportunities, which is far more important than the Oscars, which is just a self-congratulatory industry party with a narrow range of films in its aim.


----------



## Reno (Feb 29, 2016)

...then again The Birth of a Nation by Nate Parker made waves at Sundance and has been called this years 12 Years  a Slave. It's about a slave rebellion and looks like the type of film which makes for perfect awards bait, so it may well clean up next year.


----------



## Mation (Feb 29, 2016)

Reno said:


> There won't be lots of nominated black artist because the films which are going to get nominated for 2017 are already in the can or in production and they are unlikely to have employed a massive amount of black people. The Academy may just be aware to nominate a deserving black artist over a deserving white one next year, now that it's been pointed out.
> 
> Maybe in the long run non-Caucasian artists are given more opportunities, which is far more important than the Oscars, which is just a self-congratulatory industry party with a narrow range of films in its aim.


It is just self-congratulatory. (White self, to be clear.) 

But why should a black person who's good be nominated over a white person who's good? Would anyone want that? Certainly I don't want anyone of a particular race to be nominated over any other; just that any and all talent is recognised. 

The current problem is that equivalent talent is nominated (or not) according to race. And yes, you're right, there aren't as many opportunities. But I think that applies to the whole field rather than just to the best. The whole field should certainly provide more opportunity. But that doesn't excuse the biased selection that we currently see.


----------



## Mation (Feb 29, 2016)

Reno said:


> ...then again The Birth of a Nation by Nate Parker made waves at Sundance and has been called this years 12 Years  a Slave. It's about a slave rebellion and looks like the type of film which makes for perfect awards bait, so it may well clean up next year.


Birth of a Nation? A different one to the racist original?


----------



## Reno (Feb 29, 2016)

Mation said:


> Birth of a Nation? A different one to the racist original?


Yes, of course. The title is used with some irony, I suppose in the same spirit that terms of discrimination get reclaimed by its victims.


----------



## Mation (Feb 29, 2016)

Reno said:


> Yes, of course. The title is used with some irony, I suppose in the same spirit that terms of discrimination get reclaimed by its victims.


I hadn't heard of it. I'll have a look.


----------



## Reno (Feb 29, 2016)

Mation said:


> It is just self-congratulatory. (White self, to be clear.)
> 
> But why should a black person who's good be nominated over a white person who's good? Would anyone want that? Certainly I don't want anyone of a particular race to be nominated over any other; just that any and all talent is recognised.



When it comes to the acting awards in particular there often is more deserving work than there are nominations, so 5 get picked in each category over others which may have been just as good or better. That's not even taking race into account that's a general thing. So they could just as well nominated Michael B. Jordan for Creed over Eddie Remayne or Brian Cranston, neither of whom did anywhere near their best work in their nominated performances.


----------



## Mation (Feb 29, 2016)

Reno said:


> When it comes to the acting awards in particular there often is more deserving work than there are nominations, so 5 get picked in each category over others which may have been just as good or better. That's not even taking race into account that's a general thing. So they could just as well nominated the lead actor from Creed over Eddie Remayne or Brian Cranston, neither of whom deserved their nominations.


Yeah, except when it happens systematically to a particular group. In other words, yes it happens scattergun fashion across some subsets of 'types' of nominee, such as 'people who are less well known'. This is not incompatible with, or the same thing as, happening routinely amongst certain discriminated-against groups. In even more other words, there will always be people who deserve to have been nominated, who happened not to be, but this is different to people who were good enough to have been nominated but weren't for reasons other than that life is often randomly unfair, but because people sometimes choose to make life deliberately unfair to some particular people. 

Racism does exist and it is manifest here.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Feb 29, 2016)

Mation said:


> People went to it and people watched it on telly. Therefore, it doesn't matter that black people weren't nominated. Who cares? I mean, more than a little bit - just enough to say, oh isn't that terrible. The show goes on anyway. People love it anyway. Ultimately, it really doesn't matter.



TV Ratings: Oscars Drop to Near All-Time Low With 34.3 Million Viewers


----------



## Mation (Feb 29, 2016)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> TV Ratings: Oscars Drop to Near All-Time Low With 34.3 Million Viewers


Good. Let's hope it drops to zero until they buck their ideas up.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Feb 29, 2016)

Mation said:


> Good. Let's hope it drops to zero until they buck their ideas up.



34.3 million is still a goodly number.  It's about double what a CBS drama pulls every week.


----------



## Reno (Feb 29, 2016)

Mation said:


> Yeah, except when it happens systematically to a particular group. In other words, yes it happens scattergun fashion across some subsets of 'types' of nominee, such as 'people who are less well known'. This is not incompatible with, or the same thing as, happening routinely amongst certain discriminated-against groups. In even more other words, there will always be people who deserve to have been nominated, who happened not to be, but this is different to people who were good enough to have been nominated but weren't for reasons other than that life is often randomly unfair, but because people sometimes choose to make life deliberately unfair to some particular people.
> 
> Racism does exist and it is manifest here.



I'm not sure what your point is. That's pretty much implied in everything I said.


----------



## Mation (Feb 29, 2016)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> 34.3 million is still a goodly number.  It's about double what a CBS drama pulls every week.


So what was your point?


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Feb 29, 2016)

I have to admit that I had a soft spot for the bit where they sold Girl Scout cookies.  They're awful, of course, but buying them is nearly mandatory.  Its a law or something.


----------



## Mation (Feb 29, 2016)

Reno said:


> I'm not sure what your point is. That's pretty much implied in everything I said.


No. It wasn't. But if that's what you meant, then good


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Feb 29, 2016)

Mation said:


> So what was your point?



Sorry, I do seem to be working both sides of the street.  For a major event like the Oscars, 30 million really isn't that much.  Their ratings drop a little bit every year.  I think it has more to do with the fracturing of the viewer base than any moral stand on the part of viewers.


----------



## Mation (Feb 29, 2016)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> Sorry, I do seem to be working both sides of the street.  For a major event like the Oscars, 30 million really isn't that much.  Their ratings drop a little bit every year.  I think it has more to do with the fracturing of the viewer base than any moral stand on the part of viewers.


Ah. Yes, I suspect you're right. It would be nice though if it was dropping because people gave a shit. Hey ho, eh. 

(Not having a go at you; but I am very pissed off with some people.)


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Feb 29, 2016)

Mation said:


> Ah. Yes, I suspect you're right. It would be nice though if it was dropping because people gave a shit. Hey ho, eh.
> 
> (Not having a go at you; but I am very pissed off with some people.)



Maybe this will cheer you up.  A group decided to have a fundraiser for Flint, MI, instead of attending the Oscars.  

Justice For Flint: Ryan Coogler, Ava DuVernay organize fundraiser on Oscar night


----------



## Reno (Feb 29, 2016)

Mation said:


> Ah. Yes, I suspect you're right. It would be nice though if it was dropping because people gave a shit. Hey ho, eh.
> 
> (Not having a go at you; but I am very pissed off with some people.)


Who are those people ?


----------



## Mation (Feb 29, 2016)

Reno said:


> Who are those people ?


Irrelevant. Little good comes from shaming people, for the most part. 


Yuwipi Woman said:


> Maybe this will cheer you up.  A group decided to have a fundraiser for Flint, MI, instead of attending the Oscars.
> 
> Justice For Flint: Ryan Coogler, Ava DuVernay organize fundraiser on Oscar night


Good stuff  Not cheered though!


----------



## Reno (Feb 29, 2016)

Mation said:


> Irrelevant. Little good comes from shaming people, for the most part.


I think it's important to be angry at and shaming the right people, otherwise the whole exercise is pointless.


----------



## Mation (Feb 29, 2016)

Reno said:


> I think it's important to be angry at and shaming the right people, otherwise the whole exercise is pointless.


Well I'm sure your opinion is very valuable.


----------



## Reno (Feb 29, 2016)

Mation said:


> Well I'm sure your opinion is very valuable.



Because it sounds a little you just came across the issue because the Oscars were on last night, but the Oscar ceremony is not the right thing to be angry at for racism (it did after all star a black entertainer who did a great job at highlighting the issue). The entertainment industry which denies minority artist opportunities to get nominated for in the first place are the ones to blame.


----------



## Mation (Feb 29, 2016)

Reno said:


> Because it sounds a little you just came across the issue because the Oscars were on last night, but the Oscar ceremony is not the right thing to be angry at for racism (it did after all star a black entertainer who did a great job at highlighting the issue). The entertainment industry which denies minority artist opportunities to get nominated for in the first place are the ones to blame.


Ah, ok then. Thanks for putting me straight.


----------



## Reno (Feb 29, 2016)

Mation said:


> Ah, ok then. Thanks for putting me straight.


You're welcome.


----------



## Mation (Feb 29, 2016)

Reno said:


> You're welcome.


Oh dear oh lor oh my oh my.


----------



## felixthecat (Feb 29, 2016)

Maltin said:


> Did he win?



Nope.  But there again, he wasn't expected to. We lived in hope for a while though.


----------



## ffsear (Feb 29, 2016)

Reno said:


> . The entertainment industry which denies minority artist opportunities to get nominated for in the first place are the ones to blame.



What exactly are they doing to ensure this is the case ?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 29, 2016)

ffsear said:


> What exactly are they doing to ensure this is the case ?



Well I doubt they send memos to each other about how to keep black people out of movies if that's what you mean. Racism doesn't need to be deliberate, it can simply be an existing pattern of behaviour which you fail to do anything about.

A white movie producer reads a script with two lead characters whose race is neither relevant to the story nor specified in any way, and then they go out and cast two white people because that's who they saw in their head when they read the script. Maybe the casting call didn't ask for white people, but because of that picture someone already has in their head they will be more likely to cast white actors. And there aren't that many black actors, particularly black female actors, who have the sort of proven box office record that conservative hollywood money men want to attach to their movies. This all goes round in circles, without anyone necessarily doing any of it on purpose, until people actually make an effort to change how things get done.

When you think about other groups of people besides black and white, the situation looks a lot worse. There are at least a handful of black actors who will often get cast in leading roles in major movies and in roles which could be played by someone of any ethnicity. Hispanic actors who get major leading roles not written specifically as hispanic characters? Oscar Isaac is getting there (although using his middle name as his screen name, rather than 'Hernandez') but I can't really think of any others. Asian-Americans? I'm drawing a complete blank.

There is an issue. It doesn't necessarily mean everyone in Hollywood is part of a racist conspiracy, but there's still a problem. And it's not just a problem for Hollywood, it's a problem which exists in many different forms throughout multicultural societies like the US and UK.

Blaming and shaming people isn't going to help. But if you show people a problem and then tell them that they can help fix it, then you get a positive reaction and good things can happen.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 29, 2016)

Then of course you've got the people who cast Christian Bale as Moses or whatever. They're probably just racist.


----------



## Reno (Feb 29, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Then of course you've got the people who cast Christian Bale as Moses or whatever. They're probably just racist.


The same thing with Gods of Egypt which probably already is the biggest flop of the year. I don't think Exodus did that well either.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 29, 2016)

Hollywood has a very long and dirty history of whitewashing. Every time a new example raises its ugly head I just shake mine. It's unbelievable they're not learning. Each one brings a new wave of outrage though, so hopefully our new 'internet of outrage' times will start to make a difference in future casting.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 29, 2016)

Reno said:


> The same thing with Gods of Egypt which probably already is the biggest flop of the year. I don't think Exodus did that well either.



Almost as if people don't want to watch whitewashed, pseudo-historical tripe. 

Somehow I reckon they'll keep making it though.


----------



## Reno (Feb 29, 2016)

At least there now is public disapproval when that sort of thing happens and I think Hollywood will have to listen. They aren't intentionally racist, just risk averse, ignorant and always a few paces behind the times.


----------



## Reno (Feb 29, 2016)

The whitewashing happens because there aren't enough actors of colour considered big enough box office draws for these expensive films. So what needs to happen is a lot more colour blind casting like with the latest Star Wars and create more black stars. Then when they do another epic about Egypt, these roles don't have to be filled by white movie stars. Of course one Star Wars is not enough, but JJ Abrams was quite aware of what he was doing. The original Star Wars was the first blockbuster I remember to get some flack for its all white cast (so they added one token black character in Empire)

Hollywood isn't  run by the KKK, it's not that type of racism. It's the deeply ingrained racism nobody is even conscious of in themselves and which renders minorities invisible and of course most of all its money. Overcoming that does mean taking some risks. Star Wars can afford that because it will make money no matter what. Lesser known quantities are less likely to take even a small gamble with budgets which are now around 200 million bucks. Exodus and Gods of Egypt probably didn't flop because of whitewashing, they both are just very bad films.


----------



## D'wards (Mar 1, 2016)

The point of Hollywood isn't to make films - its to make money. And the films they make reflect what the audience wants, so if they truly believe that casting more non-white actors in central roles will get more punters in the door of the local multiplex they will make that change. If research tells them it may lead to less box office then they absolutely will not, and no amount of hashtags will change that.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 1, 2016)

Hollywood isn't a monolithic entity.

For example, as has been said on this thread already, JJ's casting for Finn. Individual directors will make individual decisions. The more powerful they are, the better they'll be able to argue the toss with the studio. The less powerful they are, they might not be in charge of a project that the studio wants to micromanage to such an extent anyway.

I don't think you properly understand the role social media has in the big feedback loop. It's just one facet of how audiences engage with and influence media. There are plenty of examples where social media campaigns had direct results on products and companies (not necessarily film), but it works in indirect ways even more. It helps drive sentiment in a particular direction, which in turn filters through other channels (for example, the majority of the things Chris Rock said wouldn't have been said had it not been for twitter engagement). Like it or not, social media - twitter in particular - is a huge part of the discussion now. To assume it's merely "hashtag = result" and therefore doomed to fail completely misunderstands how influential it is in shaping debate.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 1, 2016)

And if you want to solely go on the box office angle - this season has been jam packed full (comparatively speaking) of films with women and people of colour that have done amazingly well and been incredibly profitable. That fact has been used as a counter to the supposedly self-evident truth that strong women and people of colour in lead roles don't sell.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 1, 2016)

Sad to see that Chris Rock marred the Oscars with his blatant racism.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 1, 2016)

sad to see you reduced to this low level coat trailing bullshit.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 1, 2016)




----------



## The Octagon (Mar 1, 2016)

I thought Rock did a great job as host, addressed the issue head on but also placed it in the context of entertainment industry vs wider issues. Made everyone uncomfortable at points (which was momentary but effective, especially during the Stacy Dash bit and the references to lynchings) but still kept it reasonably light as an Oscar host does for what is a glorified back-slapping exercise.

Also, I thought it was 'funny' (not haha funny, IYSWIM, more ironic), that it took Ali G making a dick joke about Minions to draw attention to the lack of positive Asian representation as well.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 1, 2016)

Reno said:


> Because it sounds a little you just came across the issue because the Oscars were on last night, but the Oscar ceremony is not the right thing to be angry at for racism (it did after all star a black entertainer who did a great job at highlighting the issue). The entertainment industry which denies minority artist opportunities to get nominated for in the first place are the ones to blame.


Isn't it traditional for the Oscars to be hosted by someone who takes the piss out of the pomposity/self-importance of the Oscars as they host it? Shows they can laugh at themselves, or something. 

If so, then having a black host take the piss out of the whiteness of the Oscars is in keeping with that tradition, no? And it does nothing to change anything, surely. If anything it may act in the other direction - 'We can't be institutionally racist - look, we just paid a black person loads of money to have a go at our record on race. And we laughed at ourselves.'


----------



## Reno (Mar 1, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Isn't it traditional for the Oscars to be hosted by someone who takes the piss out of the pomposity/self-importance of the Oscars as they host it? Shows they can laugh at themselves, or something.
> 
> If so, then having a black host take the piss out of the whiteness of the Oscars is in keeping with that tradition, no? And it does nothing to change anything, surely. If anything it may act in the other direction - 'We can't be institutionally racist - look, we just paid a black person loads of money to have a go at our record on race. And we laughed at ourselves.'


Its traditional for pretty much any awards ceremony. Nobody is saying that one Oscar ceremony is going to change anything, but being angry at ceremony is being angry at the wrong thing: an entertainment show with a black entertainer and a reasonably edgy one by Hollywood standards.

I've contributed quite a bit to this thread and it's getting to a point where people who have only just become aware of the issue because of the headlines around the Oscar ceremony come here and are angry at the racist Oscars and I have to roll out the same spiel, but yet again:

Protesting that there aren't enough black artists nominated for Oscars certainly was getting the issue publicity and that's a good thing. But it was a gesture, the Oscars were used for publicity purposes, as a shorthand for Hollywood. This works for our Twitter age but the issue is more complex than "the Oscars being racist". If there isn't much to nominate in the first place, then the problem lies with those who employ artists and entertainers in the industry, not with those who vote for and hand out the awards. So is an individual academy member racist simply because they preferred a performance by Leonardo Di Caprio over that of Michael B. Jordan or because they had seen The Revenant, but not Creed or Tangerine ? And Creed and Tangerine were close to the only films which could have been serious contenders for black artists.

So individuals not voting for what is a very limited choice in itself isn't necessarily racist. The lack of opportunities at the production side which causes that limited choice is.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 2, 2016)

stethoscope said:


>



You missed his racism then?

Others didn't:
Oscars 2016: Host Chris Rock rapped over Asian-American joke - BBC News


----------



## The Octagon (Mar 2, 2016)

Gromit said:


> You missed his racism then?
> 
> Others didn't:
> Oscars 2016: Host Chris Rock rapped over Asian-American joke - BBC News



I'm not about to tell others what to be offended by (or not), but to me that joke was playing on the cliche of lazy stereotyping (Asians are good at math) to set up the follow up joke regarding the use of slave labour and how everyone is complicit in it because they desire the latest gadgets / toys.

It was a joke intended to make the (mostly rich) audience feel uncomfortable and as far as I can tell worked. Some of the reporting since seems to be the backlash against being made to feel guilty.

But you're not after a debate, just stirring as usual.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 2, 2016)

i thought it was at least good that degrees of racism were being pointed out- in a humerous manner- on a program that millions will watch. Not the 'fetch me a lemonade' racism or over here monkey chant stuff. The under the radar 'I'm afraid your application for membership of x has been declined' sort. The glass cielings in employment. Useful for people who might labour under the illusion that its all fine now cos theres a black president and in the uk we have laws on hate speech


----------



## D'wards (Mar 2, 2016)

Lowest viewing figures for years - Al Sharpton taken credit by claiming it was as a rsult of his boycott, but on Guardian Podcast they reasoned it was more "normal" non-racist people being sick of the whole #oscarsowhite thing and the Oscars being news for weeks that people just sodded off the whole thing in the end.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 2, 2016)

The Octagon said:


> I'm not about to tell others what to be offended by (or not), but to me that joke was playing on the cliche of lazy stereotyping (Asians are good at math) to set up the follow up joke regarding the use of slave labour and how everyone is complicit in it because they desire the latest gadgets / toys.
> 
> It was a joke intended to make the (mostly rich) audience feel uncomfortable and as far as I can tell worked. Some of the reporting since seems to be the backlash against being made to feel guilty.
> 
> But you're not after a debate, just stirring as usual.



I think you have to look at the comedian and the overall style.

Ali G makes himself the brunt of the gag, I'm saying stupid shit because i think I'm black but as I'm not I get it wrong by buying into stereotypes. I'm the idiot. 
His asian joke was whats known as swerve humour. You think I'm going to say something outrageous but swerve I said something else.

Chris Rock however plays the Ain't i so clever pointing shit out to you folks humour. 
The overall intention was say hey the only part the Asians played in the Oscars this year was behind the scenes, I'm going to point this out to you in a deliberately offensive manner (Deliberate stereotype), you  guys can't complain because you rich american's benefit from sweatshop electronics (another stereotype but this time i believe he means it).

He fell into lazy stereotyping three time. Sweatshops, the Chinese are good at maths and that lots of  accountants are Jewish. By the way there are Chinese Jews,Google The Kaifeng Jews. I'm sure he didn't know this at the time and just thought calling a Chinese child a Jewish name would be amusing. (Although I'll be honest i only found this out a couple of weeks ago and thanks to BBC 1).

Maybe those in the audience can't complain but did he forget the Oscars are broadcast globally to those who can complain and are directly offended at the stereotyping as it affects them daily.

Jumping to conclusions about my motives again. I'm surprised Urbanists aren't all millionaires considering everyone thinks they are a mind reader.
We pointed out in somewhere else that Oscars diversity wasn't just about black but asian and latino under-representation too if you remember. Urban discussed it before the Oscars and even said how the Asians had it worse than black actors. I was part of that discussion before Chris Rock's joke so no I'm not just stirring it up after the party.

Oscars diversity and inclusion was a high profile issue, chose to highlight 'black lives' throughout and yet when it came to including other groups to the topic made one token offensive mention. Maybe if other bits had been included in the show it could have been waved past but as it was there only mention. Nope just not good enough.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 2, 2016)

there was, rocks most annoying flaw and its not confined to just him as a comedian, a bit of a classist slur. A do-er or don't-ers bit. You won't have spotted that in your quest to hunt hypocrisy. I only skimmed the transcript of his opening routine tbh because like fuck am I watching the oscar ceremony. Nearly all award ceremonies are boring and shit now.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 2, 2016)

The majority of asians I've seen talking about it on twitter are angry as hell about those pieces. In fact, I can't think of a single asian person I've seen on there who wasn't. They feel it was racist. I accept the scope of tweets I or anyone else sees is just a drop in the ocean. But there you go.


----------



## Sue (Mar 3, 2016)

A good friend's East Asian and an actor (more stage than film but think this applies to both). The lack of colour blind casting is a massive issue for her and other E Asian actors. She rarely gets auditions for things that are colour blind, meaning she often ends up playing sex workers/DVD sellers if she wants to work.  

It's even worse for some of her friends who're mixed race -- not viewed as looking E Asian enough for those roles but not white enough to play 'white' roles.


----------



## moon (Mar 4, 2016)

My friend was shortlisted for an Oscar this year for his documentary film 3.5 minutes.. I'm not sure if he pulled it or it wasn't nominated but he is currently filming in a rainforest..


----------



## D'wards (Mar 4, 2016)

JJ Abrams introduces racial quotas at his company

JJ Abrams' Bad Robot introduces diversity quota

I'm not sure about the whole positive discrimination/quotas as a way of redressing that balance. If you are non-white and get a job due to this system some it was always be an elephant in the room - easy accusation to level that you got the job by tokenism rather than merit. And office politics can be very cruel.


----------



## moon (Mar 4, 2016)

liked because what you said is true..


----------



## moon (Mar 5, 2016)

There is a section on race and Hollywood in this 1968 documentary 'Black History - Lost, Stolen or Strayed'


----------

