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)
Craver: <And this is an award based on merit, not on race, this kind of thing that in the future will raise the sentiment that POC get nominated just because of their race alone.>
That "sentiment" doesn't have to be raised for it's always existed. Racist whites have been making the "She/he was nominated/won just because they are Black" argument since Hattie McDaniel.
JasonMovieGuy: <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.>
Uh-huh. The nerve of those ungrateful, uppity Negroes, not appreciating the crumbs they are thrown and refusing to stay in their (minority) place!
And say What will you about Jada and hate her all you want, this is not the first time she has spoken about racial issues.
Amanda- Also we can criticize some of the Academy for refusing to see Brokeback Mountain. But it's ok for us to refuse to see Straight Outta Compton because we have no interest in Hip Hop.
Do not get me started on the worship and praise of Woody Allen and Polanski on here, but Chris Brown who admitted, served time and apologized for what he did at the age of 19 should burn in hell. Michael Jackson is also a devil. Woody Allen and Polanski are Saints and people should not demonize them. I'm sorry but I used to like this site even donated to it in the past, but a lot of what's spewed on here is a bunch of crap.
Nathaniel - I was just laughing at his referencing of the Crash/Sandra Bullock wins. I don't advocate for 10 nominees in any way, shape or form! You're completely right about how it would destroy Oscar history. It doesn't make any sense. My apologies.
@NewMoonSon: As a psychic (known by many on Awards Daily), I can tell you have a lot of rage dear. I think you need some therapy and also a good smack in the face. You're overreacting. This is the Oscars, not the Million man March.
Now the voters I've spoken to have all agreed that Jada went a tad too far. They realized she herself has never been nominated- and for good reason. After a movie called Woo, she sort of disappeared. Where did she go? Will Smith's checking account was the first place. Then she decided she wanted to be a secret lesbian, and now has a son (no daughter) who poses in women's clothing- but he's straight. Right.
Eighty percent of the psychic's in my circle agree that this whole Oscars So White issue will blow over by around February. None of the voters care and in fact- by boycotting the Oscars, most of the African Americans are doing themselves more harm then good. And Cheryl Boone Isaacs, the Academy President, needs to learn how to pronounce names right (Dick Poop) before she tries changing rules that have been around for 88 years. Thank God she's only got one more term. I'd be the first to vote her off.
Now let's all relax, breathe and cross our fingers that the winners next month will all be the same, good old fashioned champions. I like my cake vanilla thank you, and no that does not make me prejudice.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but Monday was MLK day no mentions of it or recommended movies. I guess MLK is another Black male that we hate due to a bunch of rumors.
Jamie Foxx too he is soo annoying but Robert Downey Jr is cool and confident. Denzel Washington filmography is bland and he didn't deserve that golden globe award. But Jodie Foster has nothing but gems.
So Will Smith won't be going to the Oscars? OK.... I'll see him at next year's Razzies when he's up for worst actor.
Amanda/Nikki...I suspect you're the same person, but please realize that no one is talking about the things you're discussing... Polanski...Chris Brown...The Smith's sex life...oye
@BD I'm pretty sure Nathaniel would've called us out of we were the same person and I haven't mentioned the Smiths sex life at all ,but you did.
Excuse me for giving examples of the bias that goes on film sites my apologies. Oh I forgot I'm a Black woman I'm not allowed to voice my frustration with film culture.
"Do not get me started on the worship and praise of Woody Allen and Polanski on here, but Chris Brown who admitted, served time and apologized for what he did at the age of 19 should burn in hell."
Ok, this scares the hell out of me. I don't care if you are 19, 30, 48 or 72, violently beating up and assaulting a woman is never okay nor is it something we should so willfully forget or forgive just because they "apologize". And as much as you may dislike and dismiss Woody Allen he has NEVER been convicted or charged of a crime despite many, many false accusations in the past. Is he a weird man? Yes. Was his behavior with Soon-Yi perhaps inappropriate? Yes, but not illegal.
And don't act like Chris Brown is some fallen hero. Even after being charged with a felon, he STILL ends up selling millions of records worldwide and is revered in the music industry.
In the words of Liz Lemon, "I reject Chris Brown's comeback!"
@BD my posts were problematic, but not the one by Gail Withers. Sure
Great article and mostly interesting discussion. Perhaps what irks me the most about this whole thing is that you don't really see any critic groups taking steps to deal with inequality in their ranks, right? I can't remember who tweeted it, but i saw someone put up photos of the voting groups from LAFCA and NYCC and they weren't exactly bursting with diversity.
Not to mention the lack of diversity in the winners of those critics precursor awards. Go try and find a non-white winner in any of the major categories of the big critics awards. You can't. There aren't any.
So people can criticise the Academy all the want but, you know, log in your own eye etc.
Deja vu: http://thefilmexperience.net/blog/2015/7/19/box-office-amy-and-the-ant-man.html#comments
I'm not Nikki. I am Amanda, Brazilian, 34 years old, I have a Ph.D. In anthropology, I am a teacher and a mother. Born in England. Dual citizenship.
In case you are wondering if I'm black. I am not. I have Jewish, Dutch. Italian, Spanish and Portuguese ancestry. My coloring is similar to Anne Hathaway/Winona Ryder/Mary Louise Parker. If you saw me walking down the streets, you'd guess I'm white. But since I'm Brazilian, that automatically makes me a non-white/POC in the US, unless I present my British passport. Not that it makes any difference to me........
Why are most people just talking about acting? I know actors are the most publicly visible but diversity is even worse in other categories. Will we get six directors now too so that people like Todd Haynes have a better chance? Why not? Expanding the acting categories says they care about appearances rather than fixing the root problems. And you could easily see 24 white actors if those root problems aren't addressed. What then? It's a terrible idea.
Aaron@ Of course you completely looked over what I was trying to say. This site demonizes Black men who've done wrong but not Whites that is the point. You failed to mention Polanski?? Do you have that same notion with Jon Hamm , Sean Penn and Michael Fassbender do they deserve careers?
What do we do with people who've made horrible mistakes on their youths should we just burn them alive not allowing them to reform. Should we just throw away the key??? Tell me because I'm a Social Worker and deal with stuff like this all the time??
Aaron, read a bit more about Allen's case to find out why he wasn't convicted or charged. See what the judge thought of him. What the psychologists thought. The main judge's opinion. The many-many- people who have described his behavior regarding little girls throughout the years. The fact that he was banned from an UES school after being accused of stalking and inappropriate behavior.
But that's a whole different story. I digress.
Samuel
a) National Society gave best actor to Michael B. Jordan for Creed.
b) I went and took a glance at the membership lists for New York, LA and the National Society. In terms of gender, New York is on par with AMPAS (25% women). LA and National Society are worse. All three organizations are more racially diverse than AMPAS, though.
Michael Jackson was never convicted either but yet we demonized him. I still watch Mad Men despite what Jon Hamm did. Please I've never been a Chris a brown fan nor think he is some unsung hero, but at the same time this very site criticized people who listened to his music at the same time championed Polanski. The argument was the girl forgave Polanski, um Rihanna forgave Chris Brown.
Side note: seriously what should we do with teenagers who have made horrible mistakes??
Back to the Smiths such horrible people.
Jon Hamm during his college days was charged with assault along with his frat brothers for beating up a freshman so badly the victim suffered a broken spine and nearly lost a kidney, they set him on fire and beat him with a paddle. The victim, Mark Sanders stated that Jon Hamm was the main tormentor... That's not even a rumor, it's a fact. So are we going to demonize Jon Hamm?? But the Smiths are horrible people.
How dare the Smiths who has presented in the past criticize AMPA what awful people all those nasty rumors.
Michael Fassbender his ex girlfriend accused him of beating her she claimed he threw her over a chair and broke her nose and dragged her alongside her car. She dropped the charges bc she didn't want to sabotage his career according to her but it's one of those nasty things that we don't want to talk about. I can go on and on with more stories of White Hollywood but it doesn't matter bc the rumors of the Smiths are probably true and we don't care about the horrible things White Hollywood has been accused of. Let's just demonize the POC who've done or has been accused of nasty things.
Amanda and Nikki, I disagree that Nathaniel demonizes black men. I am a black male and profoundly dispirited at the level of bile you guys have thrown out there, but to answer your thoughts.
a) Will Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith's personal life is none of our business and I don't think it has any bearing on this discussion. I am rather disappointed it was brought up.
b) I'd assert that the fact that Will Smith has two nominations, one in a year where there was quite a lot of minority presence at the very least would suggest that the discussion is not just "AMPAS needs to do better. (2006: Rinko Kikuchi, Forrest Whitaker, Will Smith, Jennifer Hudson, Djimon Honsou, Eddie Murphy. Adriana Barazza and Penelope Cruz would be considered minorities according to the US Census, but those classifications are certainly debatable.) I would also point out that by not going, those kids he mentioned will see one less person. He can, and should, criticize things he's a part of to make them better. I do not see his actions as positive contributions to this debate.
c) I'm not particularly well versed on the discussion surrounding Kirk Douglas or Woody Allen. In Samantha Gieser's case, I tend to trust her feelings on the matter and try not to demonize Polanski, as uncomfortable as that makes me.
d) Legit question, Amanda and Nikki. Do you feel Nathaniel's comments on the Smiths are any more mean and vicious than what you've hurled at him? I'm very curious.
e) I have no strong feelings on Jada Pinkett-Smith. I quite like Will Smith.
f) Nikki, I don't agree with the comparison of Brokeback Mountain with Straight Outta Compton and think that's a false analogy. Unless you believe that when they say "hip-hop" they're actually saying "blackness." Though I like hip-hop.
g) Has anyone on this website criticized Michael Jackson? Ever? I've been reading Nathaniel since 2001 and I don't think I've read a single comment about him. If so, can you post a link? Because it really does seem like a straw man at this point. I think he was a terrific musician and a tormented soul.
h) re: MLK. Wow. Now you're just trolling. Given that Nathaniel has spoken often of his fondness for Ava Duvernay and Selma, it is just unnecessary.
i) Jamie Foxx can be annoying, but I kinda liked him in Ray (and I'm pretty sure he got a Film Bitch nomination for Dreamgirls). I liked Robert Downey Jr right up until Iron Man. Then I turned on him really dramatically.
j) Denzel Washington's filmmography is largely bland, though so is Jodie Foster's. Jodie Foster benefits from having two stone-cold classics, which I'd argue that Washington doesn't have. He's a terrific actor, though.
k) Nikki, voice your frustration with film culture all you want. And if you wish to accuse me of misogynoir for the next comment, go ahead, but the way you're doing so, with a litany of straw men that speak not to Nathaniel's comments in the past but to emotional fervor with which you believe he holds those believes actually works against and not for you.
l) People are going to hold whatever beliefs they want. I believe Samantha Gieser truly forgave Roman Polanski, but did so after counselling and years. I've also heard her articulate her thoughts and feelings on the situation. I haven't actually heard/read Rihanna's or Chris Brown's thoughts, but I suspect my opinion of them is no different than Mel Gibson's apologies over the years. Especially since the incident with Frank Ocean happened afterwards.
m) I was unaware of the John Hamm situation until now. That is a despicable act and it certainly lowers my opinion of him. I've got no problem demonizing him for it.
n) Nikki, you ask what we should do with youth who make mistakes. You work with them and hope they get better. You hope they understand their wrongs. If they do? If they serve their debt to society (in the case of criminal actions) and are truly contrite, then you let them live their lives. In the case of Roman Polanski, he never did. In the case of Chris Brown, I don't buy his contrition.
Nikki sounds like someone who has Alzheimer's disease. It's fairly common with the youth today who forget history within seconds. The academy has given the African Americans more then their fair share of awards. But it's never enough. Nikki and others fail to mention the other minorities that also get left out, or the Gay and Lesbian movies that get the cold shoulder (Carol) because that's not important. What is important is Jada and Will Smith crying because he failed to get a 3rd undeserved nomination for a film that gave me a concussion more then the movie.
Where were the protestors when 12 Years a Slave won Best Picture? Oh right, no where. They were applauding because Will Smith opened the envelope and all was well in Oscarville. Where were the riots when all those black people won supporting and leading acting Oscars? None of course. But now the academy is racist because they left off African Americans one time. Ugh it makes the psychics in my circle groan. You don't get nominated because of your skin color. You get nominated because your work was exceptional. And sorry, this year there wasn't enough votes to let the black folks in. Oh well, that's life.
In other news, My readings currently have The Revenant winning best picture, actor, director and cinematography. Spotlight will win nothing. It was deemed by the Midwest Psychics Society as the most boring thing on screen since the 1994 Presidential Debates, twenty one years ago.
@Arkaan, I'm not sure why you are addressing Amanda I dished out all the mean comments.
I've been reading this sight since 2002 and never once have I seen Nathaniel post anything about MLK day. Nothing. All of these were not directed at Nathaniel I. E Denzel, Jamie Foxx etc. Ask Nathaniel how he feels about Michael Jackson I'm sure he will tell you. When Michael Jackson died I was on this site and you should've seen some of the comments some by Nathaniel himself. When Woody Allen the White God is accused of something he did nothing but defend him dismissing the victims account, but that wasn't the case with Michael Jackson. Through the years I've come to this site less and less bc of this sort of attitude not only with Nathaniel but his followers. I also guess some people did not want to see Brokeback Mountain because they disliked Cowboys totally not the same thing. SURE.
a) I'm addressing Amanda because I am engaging with her comments though yes, you wrote the majority of them.
b) I wouldn't be surprised if a few people avoided Brokeback Mountain because they don't like westerns. But I think more avoided it due to homophobia. I believe you can dislike hip-hop music and not be racist. I still haven't seen Straight Outta Compton, and I like hip-hop music. The reason: the casting notice for the movie put me off. I'll probably check it out to see what the writers saw in it, though.
I appreciate that you are trying to come up with some positive solutions. I err on the side of thinking that the Academy is not malicious, but that their tastes are a reflection of their backgrounds. And yes, they see and vote for white males as dominant because they are white males (don't get me started on the sexism - would they even nominate 10 women actors if they didn't' that've to?), and because the film industry has always been lead by predominantly white movie stars, white directors and white producers (with a few exceptions like a Will Smith or a Denzel Washington). The dialogue on diversity does need to start EARLY in the annual who is a contender process, not after nominations have been announced. I have no problem with Meryl Streep and Viola Davis both being nominated again, because they are both really good.
This comment section is so bizarre. So many looooong bows being stretched. The Film Experience "demonized black men" is patently absurd.
The Dolby Theatre seats 3332 people so not all AMPAS members can attend anyway. I read somewhere that there is a lottery for tickets. So if an AMPAS member who is not nominated does not attend, it might just be that they did not get a ticket not a boycott decision.
In regards to Leo DiCaprio being a good sport:
The last time he was nominated and lost, he tweeted, and I quote:
"Fuck the Oscars. Fuck you. Fuck your mom. I'm the best fucking actor in the business. Fuck you."
Arkaan,
Thanks for that. I vaguely remembered Michael B Jordan won one somewhere along the way but couldn't find it in my quick look around while writing the comment. I think by broad point stands though - critic groups might be better, but they're not without fault either.
@ vaus: Each studio gets a specific number of tickets. And each nominee attending can bring a date. The remaining seats then go into that lottery. But even if a member wins tickets, they are not free. Not every member needs/wants to fork out several hundred dollars (plus any incidental costs of the evening) to attend the ceremony.
After your comment on the special olympics, which revealed your thoughts on them, I must say I was very disappointed. It shows a lack of sensitivity and insight (which should have sprung to mind before you finished the paragraph). It doesn't nullify your thoughts on these academy issues, but does make me think less of your opinions considering how blatantly dismissive and sure you were about a community other than your own.
I shouldn't have read this.
I mean, not the article, but this comments section.
The Film Experience comments section is always friendly and nice. I know this topic is hot, but there's no need for all this rage.
Arkana,
If Samantha Grier forgave Polanski, good for her.
That doesn't change the fact that he drugged and raped an unconscious thirteen year old. And he has been a fugitive for thirty years, fledging international justice. Nothing changes what he did.
And the Samantha Grier episode is just the tip of a very ugly iceberg of sex rings in which older men such as Polanski, Nicholson and others had sex with girls aged 12-14. That was not a one time thing.
And even if it were, it was such monstrosity that the fact that he is still being idolized and worshiped makes me sick. He raped and sodomized her as she lay unconscious. She was taken to a doctor, bleeding heavily. The files are public. Anyone can have access to it.
Yet, Polanski is treated like a god and film stars sign embarrassing petitions asking for international laws to be suspended for him. Because he is above the law, and the law shouldn't apply to him-to them.
Can you imagine the same output had Polanski been a men of color?????? Imagine a men of color drugging, raping and sodomizing an unconscious thirteen year old? Would he be getting oscars and having people signing petitions on his behalf????
Jenny -- i guess i'm a bad person. i guess none of you have ever misspoke?
Everyone -- I guess i'll have to close down this comments section which i hate doing but it has gotten out of control. People are WILDLY off topic now. What on earth do Roman Polanski and Chris Brown have to do with this topic? Nothing.
And now people are trolling (shut up Gail Withers) other people who are doing their own trolling (aside: i don't actually know what "concern trolling" means though someone accused me of doing it. Can you troll your own site?)
and people who claim to be frequent readers are stating outright lies. We do not "demonize" black men on this site. Never have. We have a diverse list of contributors. We celebrated Black History Month just last year. We celebrated the Spike Lee and Harry Belafonte honorary Oscars with multiple tribute articles. But I guess you didn't see those. And now you've rewritten history to say i hate Denzel Washington- WHAT. THE. HELL? He's one of my favorite movie stars. The only negative thing I've written about him (which I've probably written a few times) was that he should challenge himself more. i write that about lots of people - most notably Leo DiCaprio. and I thought he should be putting his power to better use -- like making Fences (which maybe he's finally doing at some point) -- instead of another shoot-em-up).
I reserve the right to say anything of the sort about anyone. If we don't have opinions about movie careers, than we really have no business running a movie blog.
Amanda and Nikki -- I know you're upset and when people get angry it does make me think. and I mistating or being tone deaf (possibly. I'm human after all)? The only way for the world to make any progress on divisive or emotionally charged topics is to talk and listen to each other. It is easier to do that when people aren't throwing fireballs in every direction that have very little to do with the topic at hand. Or leaping to accusations about what you perceive someone else believes.
What i'm saying is that false accusations don't help.
It makes me sad when people accuse this site of being racist or mansplaining because i have been so proud of the work we've done championing black and asian actors in particular. We fight against Hollywood sexism all the time. We regular discuss films from all over the world and encourage readers to see small films because all types of stories deserve to be told and heard. You all know that we care about diversity. This is one of the most diverse film sites (well, we could do with a few more straight men) on the web. Over the years we've built a diverse team of writers. We care about diversity. Always have. I have to wonder if these claims are actually aimed to hurt us since it's pretty clear we care about diversity.
But, yes, we could do better. Couldn't everyone?
IN CONCLUSION (whew) In an odd way I think we all want the same thing. But I see #OscarsSoWhite as a symptom of a much larger problem (in Hollywood in general). I want THAT problem solved. That's the problem I care about. Because in the end which 20 people the Oscars vote for is always going to provoke sadness and joy and anger depending on the viewer and Oscar's most visible category will only be diverse once the movies that get made and pushed are. All I've been saying the whole time is that that is the real issue and all this "The Academy is racist!" talk is pointing the finger at the messenger instead of the message.. And all i've been trying to get people to think about is that core problem. Because it doesn't make sense to accuse the Academy -- which gets more diverse every year -- of being more racist than they were in the Aughts (2000-2009) when the all white acting lists literally NEVER happened.
peace out.