Oscar in Panic Mode. This Rarely Ends Well...
Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 10:10AM 
Readers I'm getting nervous. I love the Oscars. Ever since I saw the shiny gold man on a TV guide cover as a little boy and was all "what is that?" I've been hooked. So their history means a lot to me.
It's actually because of that history that it's fun as well as uplifting to chart their progress over the years in dealing with diversity -- and there has been a lot of progress no matter what the current cultural rage would imply. It's been a thrill to see the "first this" and "first that" over the years.
But this year things are getting ugly. The Academy often makes terrible mistakes when its criticized (note all the 'we can't make up our minds' volatility with the rules following The Dark Knight year) and now they'll be meeting on possible rules changes including returning to 10 Picture nominees. President Cheryl Boone Isaacs promises "big changes". Some people are even floating acting fields as big as 10 nominees. This is probably the worst idea I've ever heard in relation to the Oscars. [More...]
If they moved back to a solid 10 nominees, which of these four would have been the extra two nods?
How will it even be special to be a nominee? Showbiz is a tough business. This is why they call actors "troupers" and why "The show must go on!" is such a mantra. Not everyone can be nominated in a given year -- even stars as big as Will Smith and Leonardo DiCaprio have to sit it out from time to time when they have a performance that's firmly "in the conversation." It's especially strange for Will Smith to raise a fuss this year since he's a two time nominee who showbiz has been enormously kind to over the years. And let's face it: it's hard to get Oscar nominated when your movie doesn't get good reviews. To protest in a year where you were a long shot and didn't make it comes across as being a sore loser; a lot of people probably don't remember this now but Leonardo DiCaprio refused to go to the Oscars when he wasn't nominated for Titanic (1997) and it was NOT a good look for him. It reflected poorly on him back then but he was young and he got over it and started being a good sport about awards.
Show business has never been a business for the faint of heart or the fragile. Not everyone gets a nomination or emerges from the big night a winner. And if they did, I'd wager that no one would care about them at all in about oh... two years time once the novelty wore off. And the Oscars, which have weathered 88 years of storms, would cease to be. 'Maybe that's not a bad thing?' Some people would argue. A truth: the people who would argue that should not be in the conversation about how to fix the Oscars because the Oscars have no value to them.
Expanding nominee fields, in addition to disrespecting 8 decades of history, would not necessarily help. At all. People will complain even more because the root of the problem -- which involves who makes decisions in Hollywood and who gets cast and what type of movies they're in -- will still be there. You don't cure a disease by treating symptons. If the movie industry is not changing around the Oscars there WILL easily be years with no visible minorities again (please note that no one on earth whose complaining about this seems to care about any minorities who are not famous actors -- note the lack of outcry over Todd Haynes, one of the world's most gifted filmmakers not being nominated.... again).
There are so many solutions to the diversity problem that do not require dismantling everything that makes the Oscars the Oscars. Here are a few to address a lot of problems, and not just the diversity problem:
- Get Rid of Non-Voting Members. i.e. those that aren't committed. This gives you more room to add new members and continue your worthwhile diversity push (please note: this does not mean ditching older voters. There's nothing wrong with ageing; we all do it.)
- Blue-Ribbon Panels. Set up executive blue-ribbon panels for more open dialogue with general voting populists -- they could send out suggestion lists... THROUGHOUT THE YEAR that's something more than just the punditry of "who will get nominated?" or "who should" that voters may or may not see or care about.
- Eligibility Lists With Visuals. Send out reminder eligibility lists for the actor's branch with actual faces on them - like the Emmys do... maybe if actors voting are looking at all that while they're voting they might even notice their racial bias themselves without all this shaming fuss and reconsider a vote or two.
- Mid Year Report. Set up some sort of mid year system (this was suggested by Siskel & Ebert back in the day) of semi-finals or reminder lists for later. So that films don't feel the need to arrive all at once and make it hard for everyone to stay informed about what they're voting on. Hell you could even have a televised "Oscar Preview" special if you really put your mind to it and get voters thinking about their ballots early.
- Require Voters to See the Movies They're Voting On. Older voters aren't the problem but voters who don't see the movies could be. As fun as Steven Soderbergh's published lists of his daily screenings are that he releases once a year it was shocking to peruse them and realize that he didn't see half films he would have been voting on as a member. And Glenn recently pointed out to me another non-old voter who offers an egregiously upsetting example. Glenn writes: "It was only a few months ago that Quentin Tarantino admitted to not even seeing SELMA... there are actually likely plenty of people who just aren't watching the movies. Quentin Tarantino of all people, a man who has made his career off of African Americans and their language and their stars and their genres didn't even bother to see a best picture nominee about Martin Luther King. If that's not a tell tale sign then I don't know what is."
- Bake-Offs/Semi-Finals. If things don't improve after a few years consider, at least partially, what the foreign film committees do with checks and balances and a special panel who can insert a couple of names into the finals (though members still get to vote on the final outcome) or what the craft branches sometimes do where the field gets slowly whittled down.
The comments at the NYT article about all this linked up top are disheartening too. Just yet more ageism as if everyone has peered upon the secret ballots of all the members and has determined that anyone over 60 that doesn't work much doesn't know what the f*** is going on and is also racist. Never mind that they're the only ones who have time to attend massive amounts of screenings -- as is required by the documentary & foreign film committees and really ought to be required in other fields since people should actually see the films they're voting on. Maybe it's just me but I'd trust the ballots of, say, Warren Beatty (78) and Sidney Poitier (88) a helluva lot sooner than I'd trust the ballots of, I dunno Tom Hooper (43) and Jennifer Hudson (34), you know?
Reader Comments (136)
John: A really good point. I mean, I love Oscar predicting, but it always befuddles me how quickly Oscar prognosticators themselves narrow the filed of possible contenders to a "those most likely to" list based on stereotypical notions of what gets nominated. Then, when those contenders DO get nominated, everyone complains, but's a self-fulfilling prophecy that they have willed into being. I don't include Nathaniel and this site in the above assessment, as they champion diversity. (I mean, if voters had listened to Nathaniel, Creed would have a bunch of nominations.) But so many voices just go for the obvious. It's a catch-22 situation: prognosticators try to predict what will likely get nominated, studios position those very films in the awards race, voters only focus on those films, and prognosticators then complain about the results!
LadyEdith: You mention the DGA being a boys' club, but they have created a new award this year for Best First-Time Feature Film Director and Marielle Heller for Diary of a Teenage Girl is one of the nominees, so there's a bit more diversity coming through there.
Edward L. - I am pro reform, so I applaud this new award that the DGA has inaugurated. Considering the DGA has been under scrutiny for the last couple of years for it's lack of female membership. (The total female membership of the DGA is 3,617 of a 16,000-member guild)
The big contentious issue is the lack of studios hiring female directors - so raising the profile of new directors is helpful. Which is why a similar award at the Oscars would be good.
First essay I have read on this that offers hope and some really constructive ideas. Bravo!
Gotta third 3rtful and Garen here — I don't understand the rush to defend what is essentially a conventionally attractive and rich people exceptionalism pageant (that for some reason I still watch! I must be crazy, truly). This website is on record numerous times as saying that this and other awards shows are more about politics than they are meritocracies. Isn't the best we could hope for that it could be reworked to draw attention to a wider array of material? I'm not really interested in deducing the most objective way to award the perceived "best,"; I'd rather these shows were about exposing people to the new and unfamiliar. *That* would be a good step in pushing back on institutionalized racism, since there is so often this perception that cinema featuring people of color is somehow "niche." [See, for instance, that recent interview circulating wherein David Bowie calls out MTV for not playing black artists' videos]
I also have to say that I haven't been crazy about the air of white objectivity in a lot of these posts. Calling people who are calling out this problem "noisy" doesn't lend any extra validity to your defense of the Oscars. You are not right just because you are ostensibly dispassionate. That's concern trolling. Take a step back.
Finally, I do not at all get this argument that people ought to be critiquing the studios instead of the Academy... aren't they largely populated by the same people? Or, would it at least be fair to say that there doesn't exist a real, impermeable border between Oscar and film industry pundits and the industry itself? I mean, I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions and maybe people are just talking about the producers, but why not encourage the Academy to do better? Is someone holding a gun to their heads? Why not do the ten actress thing? There were probably over a thousand leading roles last year and thousands of working actresses in the industry. Is there something sacred about the number five?
I dont understand What the Smith's marital arrangements, their family lives and What Goes on behind closed doors has anything to do with this Discussion. The points are valid. What happens in the intimacy of their home -none of us share their bed so whatever makes then happy and they agree with as long as it involves consenting adults and everyone involved is in agreement- doesnt take anything away from it.
They have a Huge ego? Probably. Who doesnt in this industry? Jada has always been an outspoken woman. Nothing new here.
They made enemies on their way up? Probably. Again, most of them surely did. There are vicious stories about mostly all A-listers. This is not an industry made of selfless, ego-less, non-narcisistic, naive, silly people.
And yes, the special olympics analogy was a distasteful one.
The industry and to an extent the Academy itself are to blame for the lack of diversity in this year's acting nominees. But so are critics and the precursors -- both of whom largely determine who gets nominated by bringing attention to some performances and ignoring others. The Globes, for example, aren't "off the hook" just because they included Smith and Elba -- neither of whom had a chance of winning.
I think the point I am trying to make here is that institutional racism is a conversation that we need to be having throughout the year, not just when the Oscar nominations are announced. Critics (outside TFE, of course, also need to reconsider what kinds of films get awards. Eddie Redmayne coasted through the season because he starred in a film that people accepted as prestigious sight unseen, while Smith, who was just as deserving but starred in a movie that didn't scream "Oscar" was left outside looking in.
Tim: I think the right reason for critiquing the industry rather than the Academy is because the industry DOES have to change. If Idris Elba had been nominated this year, and he was probably close, then nothing changes. So expanding the acting categories to increase the likelihood of having more diverse nominees doesn't change the industry either. It just means the Academy has shot their own history in the foot. Again.
BUT if this 2-year trend shines a light on Hollywood hiring practices and movies with more diverse casts are given wider releases and more expensive campaigns, then we do start to see a difference.
Mike — I guess that's one way of looking at it, that it's easier for people to pat themselves on the back and stay complicit when there's a visible token, but I'm much more inclined to think that awards shows have a tastemaking function and they're important in marketing, which is exactly why studios pump so much money into FYC campaigns. If they make deliberate moves to call attention to a wider array of material, they could influence people to patronize those movies, and if people patronize those movies in increasing numbers, the studios will change what they make and market. I don't think the Oscars are so precious that they couldn't take a bit of radical change. I also don't see how having more acting nominees would somehow lessen the pedigree of the Oscars — to offer an analogy, many people suggest that affirmative action lessens the standards of prestigious universities, which we know is specious. Why would this be any different? I see the Oscars as a wonderful staging ground to make this kind of change. And if that really concerns people, I think we've highlighted a problem.
If you increase the acting categories to 10, then the term "Academy Award nominee" will hold no weight whatsoever.
This is an institutional problem, and things have to undergo a major sea change.
I would be open to six nominees in the acting categories. That's kind of the only thing that wouldn't be THAT crazy. 10 nominees? Hell no ! Maybe in the best picture category but not in the acting ones.
You're right — *10* instead of *5* would irreparably damage the pedigree of the Oscars. What was I thinking?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfQs7WbVse8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hTTwSQPmMo
Tim: A+!
Tim - I like tradition, for one thing, and I think the 20 nominee slate is a nice one, but if I felt that there was a compelling reason, I don't think it's the most important thing in the world.
But I think the idea of raising the number of nominees doesn't have any real connection to the diversity of the eventual nominees. But if there were 6 nominees this year, it could just as easily be Johnny Depp and Jacob Tremblay that get those bonus slots, and what's the point of having 24 white nominees instead of 20.
OR we wind up with 23/24 white nominees and somehow this is seen as a victory.
OR we wind up with a Hamilton musical, or another The Help or 12 Years a Slave, and we don't get to see how well the actors would have done on the same playing field as before, which is a truer indication of the Academy's progress.
I don't think it lessens the pedigree of the Oscars, but I think it has very little real connection to the problem of Oscars So White.
I am honestly tired of hearing the Oscar So White argument. Seriously, get mad at the movie roles being offered before getting mad at the nominations. And considering African Americans are a minority, they have been rewarded rather well in the past 15 years. We've seen the likes of Denzel Washington, Jamie Foxx and Forest Whitake win the Lead Acting Oscar. Halle Berry won Lead Actress and Morgan Freeman Supporting Actor, and Jennifer Hudson, MoNique, Octavia Spencer, and Lupita Nyong'o took supporting actress honors. And those are just the winners.
I seriously don't get the hate. Jada Pinkett Smith can sit down. She hasn't had a good role since Set It Off and isn't that impressive as an actress. Her husband Mr. Smith has had 2 acting nominations, and if she had been paying attention she would have known he was a longshot for a nomination in Concussion.
Spike Lee does have the right to be bitter because he should have won the Screenplay Oscar in 1989 for Do the Right Thing, and Malcom X was unfairly snubbed in all the major races. But he just won an honorary Oscar. Be grateful and gracious you were chosen over so many other filmmakers and artists. It just comes off like blatant whining after a while. It's about the work, and sorry there were limited African American roles that deserved nominations. Michael B. Jordan was okay in Creed but I wouldn't have him on my ballot. Tessa Thompson, his girlfriend, was NOT deserving of even being in the conversation. Her role was not that impactful, and even annoying. Elba yes, was snubbed. But again- that had to do more with Netflix then overall. Straight Outta Compton should have been a best picture nominee, but Carol got snubbed too. Where are the Gay & Lesbian activists? Don't they get a say too?
Let me also add that the African American community seems to never be satisfied with the Oscars, even WHEN they win.
I recall that when Halle Berry and Denzel Washington both won leading Oscars for their roles in Monster's Ball and Training Day, suddenly it was not a moment to rejoice- but a moment to complain. "She's playing a whore, he's playing a villain. Why do black actors have to win for playing negative stereotypes?" They won the gold, and there were still protests. Again, no one protested when they GOT the roles, or when they were nominated. And if they had lost, best believe there would have been outcries. "The academy is racist. Berry only lost because she's black." This is what happened when Viola Davis lost in The Help. But had she won, you would have heard those same activists then flip it around and say she won for playing a maid, and that's racist.
If Straight Outta Compton had been nominated for Best Picture, would the activists be satisfied? Doubtful. Somehow I feel they would find a reason to nitpick the decision, most likely proclaiming that it only made it because it showcased Gangsta rap and thugs coming from the rough streets of California.
It's push and pull. There will never be satisfication in this debate
It's just becoming a redundant complaint.
@Jason Realize that representation matters. Realize that the movie industry, and AMPAS, needs to showcase diversity. The outrage over the types of roles African-Americans win and get nominated for hardly matches or warrants the same outcry for their complete absence in nominations. What is your end goal here? What is the point of your comment? To invalidate the very clear and warranted complaint that the Academy needs to showcase films and performances from all background? Sorry that important calls for diversity are becoming too redundant for you.
Yeah let's remove the Special Olympics reference Nat...eek!
Hollywood is a patriarchal white supremacist institution. No one is relinquishing their stronghold over the industry. The Academy is a convenient scapegoat for the illness of the establishment. Sure they deserve their share of shit. But in the end all this does is remind me Hollywood cares more about image than actual progress.
POC means people of color not Black people..i.e. Asians, Latinos and Native Americans as well as Blacks.
/3rtful: Is hoping that Jennifer Lawrence says something anti-semitic what you call "actual progress"?
@John- you misunderstood my post entirely then. African Americans should be mad at the studios for not producing better movies. The Oscars are the end of the line. Don't get mad at the voters for not choosing Michael B Jordan in a VERY crowded best actor race. Don't get upset they didn't fall for another Tyler Perry movie or Kevin Hart being silly on screen. Start demanding better distribution for quality films. And also be appreciative of the black actors and filmmakers who HAVE been nominated and won. Again, they are minorities. So they will never out number the majority.
JasonMovieGuy, the nomination process goes through the Academy. Guess who is in the Academy? Acclaimed directors, producers, writers, actors, casting directors, agents, and other skilled artists who have various degrees of influence in their field. Tackling the nominations is tackling the diversity problem, because it forces those same people to think about their casting processes and their own internal biases. Or at least that's the intent and approach. Whether it's ultimately successful is another matter altogether.
Even if we are go to with the argument that there were no minorities who gave award-worthy performances, the people who are at the forefront of this debate are taking advantage of a groundswell of support. The Oscars don't happen in a vacuum, it's happening in a larger political, social, and cultural context where diversity is under attack. It's a strategic point. To divorce the Oscars from what is happening in the US and around the world is foolish, and for people advocating diversity in artistic fields, this is a good time and place to make their point. This is their livelihood and their pride they're defending, and that would be worth more to them than the history of an awards institution with a historical record of blocking them out.
I'm appalled at your implication that one has to have 'artistic merit' to criticize an event. Jada Pinkett Smith can sit down and shut up about the Oscars because you don't think she's a good actress? Really? If we're making these kinds of judgment calls, we are in truly dangerous times. Who determines this? For that matter, the African American community is not a hivemind monolith -- they're composed of people with varying opinions, so to state that all of them were happy or unhappy with a black actor's win or loss is untrue and ignores a lot of basic human facts.
@Flikah: Jada Pinkett Smith is only saying this because she's mad her husband didn't get a nomination. Do YOU read the news?? Other people are calling her out on it, including the actress who played Aunt Viv on Fresh Prince and then was fired because Will Smith was being a jerk. I'm not arguing with you anymore. You completely missed my point. I know my history when it comes to the Oscars. I've been studying them for a LONG time. Take your political biased somewhere else.
Very good comments by JasonMovieGuy. Pablo: just like you, I wouldn't mind having 6 nominees in the acting categories, but that's about it.
@Nathaniel - echoing what others have said with regards to the Special Olympics reference. Yikes. I must have skimmed that part earlier.
Todd Haynes' unfortunate snub needs to be thrown into the hat. Doesn't matter nobody "famous" has taken a stand on his behalf. Just add his name to the hat -- the way Idris Elba addressed UK Parliament (and invoked by Hawk Koch to his non-minority denizens) about creating opportunities to nurture talents from marginalized demographics.
It's telling Deray Mckesson, who ticks both boxes of black and gay, focused on white privilege - not also straight privilege - when he guested on Colbert recently. His platform is police brutality against POC, not specifically gays or LBTQ POC. Is this favoring one minority over another? Can reducing police brutality against POC, better the treatment of all minorities by law enforcement? (The way Black Panthers and their programs stood with gay rights?)
No use quibbling, just add all names that are historically sidelined, to the hat.
I stopped reading at - "Show business has never been a business for the faint of heart or the fragile so the Oscars can't ever be like the Special Olympics - not everyone gets a nomination or emerges from the big night a winner."
Changes aside, boycotting the Oscars because one of the few outside possibilities that could've been nominated weren't is... unproductive to say the least. (And let's please stop citing "Straight Outta Compton" as a best-of-the-year.)
Reforms to make the Academy more diverse are necessary and admirable. Attempting to blame the Academy--in their capacity as a voting body--for the lack of diversity in film is misguided.
My suggestion for ensuring voters watch movies is low tech. Ask members to keep a diary of films watched that can be requested for a random audit by AMPAS vote counters. Even if voters lied about what they watched, they would have to think about they should have watched and didn't.
On changing the number of nominations or voting method, I expect that the Academy's accountants/vote-counters still have the past years' ballots stored especially the online ones. This means that a "what-if" test of rule changes and their affects is quite do-able. Select random samples of votes and count with different rules. So no-one really knows and feels cheated, the report to AMPAS would not contain references to the year or names.
Hayden W, Oscars is a preferential ballot so there is only one point per voter. It usually goes to first place and only to later votes if the first vote gets too few (when the vote is distributed to the next place still in the running) or if the first vote has an excess of votes required (when a proportion is distributed to the next place still on the running). So in your example, the Jane Fonda vote would be eliminated and the second vote would get the point (if still in the running and not already achieved the quota) or it would go to a next selection.
/3rtful -- You're the first to every post (no matter the topic) and always have something rude or mean or just depressing to say -- today it's calling me "vapid" which is new but i'm a big boy i can take it. But, honestly, please, for your mental health: find a site you love and go there instead every day.. All this toxicity, year round, it can't possibly be good for you!
Kieran -- thanks for weighing in on Will Smith. I felt kind of bad calling him out for reasons people are saying... but this is just not like which is why people are raising their eyebrows
Cash -- interesting. i so hope you're wrong lol. but you might be right.
Cris -- save an acre for me.
Gena -- it's customary to not be a spoilsport and to support your film, yes. Leo got bad press when he ditched the Titanic Oscars. That's the example i thought of right away because it was so obviously a sore loser situation.
Mark & LadyEdith -- maybe that would work. but i think that's what the student academy awards are supposed to be. not that you hear much about them.
Garen -- from your comment it sounds like you don't come here often so just so you know we do tend to focus on lifting up great work. And we champion all sort of underdogs that do great work. If there are websites that are complicit in helping the Academy have bland all white nominees each year, it ain't us is what I'm saying. (also:a funny post about Rachel McAdams AFTER her nomination hardly qualifies us for advocating for mediocrity.
Amanda & Laika & Joe & others -- i agree that i fucked up with the special olympics analogy. my bad. it's been removed. I was upset at this strange insistence that the Oscars move from being a very limited contest about movies (which is the whole reason people love it really) to something that wouldn't ever upset anyone by leaving anyone out.
Tim & Sean Diego -- that's funny but do you actually have no respect for Oscar traditions (like the 5 wide field which has been the case for 70+ years and has zero to do with racism) ? just curious. A lot of people around the web shouting about this seem to not even watch the Oscars
http://gawker.com/dont-just-boycott-the-oscars-destroy-them-1754075372
Someone on Gawker said that we shouldn't just boycott the Oscars, but destroy them.
This is a nightmare for me personally, LOL, how could you destroy MY christmas?
Why is changing the acting nominees to 10 a bad? Well, Nathaniel succinctly described it in detail. There HAS been progress in relation to diverse nominees in the past 15 years. I sound like a broken record here with the other commenters but the fault likes in the kinds and TYPES of roles minorities are offered. Jamie Foxx had no problem whatsoever sweeping the award circuit for Ray...because he was playing a super famous musician in a biopic--a genre Oscar is obsessed with (works for white actors too, Just ask Sissy Spacek). Forest Whitaker and Jennifer Hudson were also in prime Oscar-bait roles (and both won in the same year). What pisses me off year in and year out with the Academy Awards is that they consistently acknowledge and reward various shades of the same type of role. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and Oscar prognosticators are complicit in this as well. Disease, disability, real person, criminals/villains, oppressed, prostitute...these are tropes that are Oscar-tested and they continuously win each year (last year: Redmayne-disease/real person; Moore-disease; Simmons--villain; Arquette-grieving/oppressed mom). Because of this, we miss out on challenging, distinct work like Marion Cotillard's moody, mysterious amputee in Rust and Bone and Tilda Swinton's frosty, unsympathetic mother in We Need to Talk About Kevin. I truly do not believe that there is some vast, sinister conspiracy that some of the media has tried to push that the Academy is somehow averse to actors of color. When the types of roles that Oscar "likes" are in the running, they usually get nominated regardless of the actor's race. And it's ironic in this ongoing media outrage that the issues of racism has now brought up ugly bouts of ageism. Some of the same journalists, experts, and commentators who have criticized Hollywood's resistance of funding movies with seniors for older moviegoers are now implying these same people are washed-up, senile, out-of touch hags and dopes who are closeted racists. Charming. I'm sure Shirley MacLaine and Anthony Hopkins love hearing this.
And I am so over The Smiths. Not only have they inflicted their obnoxious, talentless children on us, but now they are boycotting? Curiously enough, when Will Smith is in the running and doesn't get a nomination? Give me a fucking break. Janet Hubert's criticism was entirely warranted, and if Will and Jada truly want to increase the opportunities and visibility of black performers, then they absolutely have the financial resources and international clout to do so. Instead, they make big-budgeted vanity projects for Will and his son like that abominable After Earth. I seriously do not understand how people cannot see through their bullshit.
If we made the acting nominations to 10 in Best Actress, Meryl would be nominated even more and would still not solve the diversity issue. It would be worse.
Idris Alba might have gotten a nomination if his film had been backed by one of the major studios and remember the Oscars were created as industry publicity tool. I don't think the Academy is racist- then why would they honor the Spike Lee with an award? The problem is that do we nominated minority performances for the sake of political correctness? I don't know the process of how actors get nominated - but did the studios back their minority actors as much as their white starts?
Again-the couple's personal life and what happens between them, in the intimacy of their Home and whether or not they are the world's nicest couple has nothing to do with whats being discussed. I dont follow their careers this closely, but werent they behind the recent Annie revival with Quazavanhe and Jamie Foxx? And maybe they could do more for black people in the Industry but that doesnt mean that they dont have a point.
George Clooney also spoke. One of the ten most Powerful stars in hollywood, who is also a producer and a director. What has he done???
Ita funny that some people attacking Will and Jada for rumours about their personal lives are the same people who turn a blind eye to Woody Allen and Polanski. Polanski, who drugged and raped an unconscious thirteen year old girl and is treated like a God and gets people signing petitions asking for international laws to be suspended so he can attend a Film festival because they are so special laws shouldnt apply to them.
I want an Anthony Hopkins / Shirley MacLaine road trip buddy movie now :-)
Oh my - I was just thinking 'I bet they expand the Acting categories'. The Emmys increased their acting cats from 5 to 6 and we haven't had much trouble since then.
But If the Academy did increase it from 5 to 6 - and all 6 nominees are white again - will there be an outcry to increase it to 7 or even 10?
Remember they increased the Best Film category fro 5 to UP TO 10 because of the Dark Knight debacle - and here we are with just 8 noms and a crtically acclaimed lesbian drama, a critically acclaimed black drama and the all time box office winner were all snubbed. Oh wait - that makes it ELEVEN potential best film nominees.....so lets increase it to ELEVEN or 12 or 15 or 20.
As for the Will Smith boycott - this just comes across as sour grapes. The people who have legitimate gripes are Idris Elba, Michael B Jordan and the Compton producers and director. I mention Jordan only because he got very good reviews and even won a precursor award or two.
Here is my prediction of what is going to happen;-
1. The Smiths and Spike Lee will be the only people boycotting the Oscars.
2. There'll be a crowd of black and LGBT protesters outside
3. Chris Rock will make some vulgar joke at the opening which will generate nervous giggles, some applause and a lot of boos from the mainly white audience.
4. There will be a LOT of black, Hispanic, Asian and LGBT presenters ....to show the world how diverse the Academy really is.
5. Compton will win Screenplay so the Academy can show the world they aren't racist.
6. Inarritu will win Director so the Academy can ......
Yep you get the drift.
I'll be watching the Oscars like I always do. We true fans take the good with the bad. That's what makes it so bloody good.
Rami, would that be a sequel to A Change of Seasons lol?
The only person I've heard talk about The Smiths' intimate personal life is Alexis Arquetfe. I think it's totally fair to question his part in producing, advocating and funding films with diverse casts when he has the financial resources and is one of the most famous and bankable movie stars in the world. Same with George Clooney.
This debacle has made me appreciate someone like Reese Witherspoon much more. After discovering that no major movie studio was developing films with female leads she started her own company with her OWN money with a mission to develop and produce films with women at the center. Instead of bitching, moaning, and crying she took the situation into her own hands and worked to remedy the disparity. Good for her, and this should be a model to emulate.
Amanda -- everyone who says they care should do more. agreed. This is why i love Brad Pitt and Ava DuVernay so much. They actually put their money and fame to use supporting challenging cinema and/or diverse film culture.
Bette -- i doubt very much he gets any boos. AMPAS might be feeling defensive but they're probably not wanting any more controversy.
Lol I never knew about A Change of Seasons. They can get Bo Derek onboard too :-)
Not saying anyone is advocating for mediocrity. I'm saying mediocrity doesn't need an advocate. It's already here. The bar is already super low. And still we can't manage to find people of color to nominate.
Also I check this site several times a day. And I've been checking it several times a day for nigh on a decade. I will continue to come and read and be a fan, even though I find this discussion to be a bit tone deaf.
$0.02
Garen -- appreciate the response. I have heard your $0.02... i probably need a break from this topic i admit.
Nat --- I still watch the Oscars, though they've been so awful for at least the last decade that I'm starting to wonder why. At this point, given how awful their picks are each year, I don't necessarily care if it's 5, 10, or 15 nominees. Like I said earlier, I'd be more into a show that champions a breadth of great work than one that keeps picking the same mediocre kinds of fare over and over again. I also know that changing the number of nominees wouldn't fix institutional racism (if only!), but if it means Elba, Jordan, Jackson, et. al. (all deserving of recognition) got more facetime, then I'd say the ends justified the means. Analogy: it's a longstanding tradition that we choose between two presidential candidates every four years — wouldn't more be better? Wouldn't it result in more interesting policy conversations? I think making the Oscars less about exceptional whiteness, whatever the means, could have the same effect. So, short answer, no, I don't have any love for Oscar traditions.
Called it when BFCA goes to 11 acting nominees.
A perhaps ill-thought Special Olympics mention aside (I get what you were saying, but I can understand people getting sensitive about it), I think that Nathaniel's posts about this subject have been thoughtful, articulate, and on point. Great reading! I especially agree with this line: "...the people who would argue that should not be in the conversation about how to fix the Oscars because the Oscars have no value to them." I mean, if your argument is "the Oscars suck, let's change it", you probably didn't care about the Oscars to begin with!
I'm also confused by Will Smith's "stance". So, he was totally fine with presenting a Best Picture Oscar to "12 Years a Slave" 2 years ago, but all of a sudden, things aren't right? Spike Lee's stance, on the other hand, totally makes sense; he's never seemed too big on the Oscars anyway. But it does seem a bit like biting the hand that feeds him in a year that he got an honorary award.
Amanda- Great post! First you had people criticizing Will for not speaking up and letting his wife speak for him. He says something now all people want to talk about is their personal lives, rumors and sour grapes. I'm sure there are nasty rumors about every single person in Hollywood. Like who the hell cares ?? At least they brought up the convo. This just sounds like a way to divert the issue. I'm pretty sure if this was a White couple they'd be heros. But it was two Black people who according to some people on this site has no right to say anything on the matter bc one of them was nominated twice in the past and bc of some Hollywood rumors. Are we serious???
"Get Rid of Non-Voting Members. i.e. those that aren't committed. This gives you more room to add new members and continue your worthwhile diversity push (please note: this does not mean ditching older voters. There's nothing wrong with ageing; we all do it.)"
Interesting idea in theory, but wouldn't that then encourage people who haven't seen the movies and don't know what they're talking about to submit uninformed ballots every year just to preserve their status as voters? I feel like that would be way more detrimental.
So let's teach our children that we should never criticize something that we are apart of. We should not criticize America bc we live here and we reap the benefits of being American.
Anyone who has been nominated in the past and have presented awards should never criticize the Academy. Is that what people want. I'm sorry but some of you guys are being ridiculous.
Nikki- and Jada started this. People dont like when women speak their mind. Let alone a woman of color. If they do, like she did, people will find mean and vicious ways to criticize her. She will be another "Angry black woman"
Every A-lister has nasty rumours about them. Stories of bearding, casting couch, prostitution, Drug abuse, betrayals, sexual favours, etc. this is not the point right now and should not be used to distract and derail from an important and urgent topic that needs to be discussed.
And curiously-NOT-white males are all quickly more forgiven for their nastiness- woody allen, polanski, kirk douglas, etc.
George clooney is being a hypocrite. He has all the Money and prestige in the world. Could do more. So could so many others.
Amanda- It truly is shocking and disappointing.