Oscar nominee Charlotte Rampling about Oscar diversity kerfuffle: "It's racist to white people." - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Cone;49584879]because it's a fairly simple sports tale about a likable guy who puts himself through intense physical and emotional training to beat the odds and win the respect of his family and loved ones. it's a standard story told well and they usually go nuts over that kind of thing[/QUOTE] I never considered that to be oscar bait, I always thought Oscar bait was the mildly artistically inclined films that borrow heavily from the traditions of film making that deal with "heavy" but acceptable subject matter in a fairly blaise way(Though in depth compared to normal hollywood)

you guys is it REALLY that hard to believe that influential white people would nonconsciously choose other white people for awards over people of color with whom they identify less? you are sticking your head in the sand if you truly believe that every person responsible for the nominations is totally unbiased and racially nonpreferential

[QUOTE=RichyZ;49584767]but did either of those take 12 years to make? checkmate[/QUOTE] There's hundreds of prestigious film awards out there. This one doesn't matter in the long run.

[QUOTE=xbax;49584828]I respect that this is your opinions but I think it's ridiculous. If a black man comes to me and calls me a honky and is being dead serious then that is racism. If I went to a black man and call him the n-word and I'm being dead serious then that is racism. It has nothing to do with power, discrimination against any race is racism.[/QUOTE] Exactly, there is no reversed racism because it's actually just racism. At least I hope that's what they mean.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;49584832]If, in some mystical universe, the reason that there were no black actors nominated was that it just happened, by pure coincidence, that no black people did anything worthy of nominations, this would hold true. The probability of that is negligible. In reality, it stems both from the subconscious selection biases of the judges as well as institutional problems in the availability and access to good roles for black actors. I am all for picking the best person for the job but the idea that black people, through no direct or inadvertent discrimination anywhere in the system, just happen to be unrepresented in the Oscars is laughable.[/QUOTE] "X simply must be the case" just isn't really a very persuasive argument.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49585079]"X simply must be the case" just isn't really a very persuasive argument.[/QUOTE] Do you truly believe that around 14% of the US population are unrepresented by pure chance?

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;49584853]The problem stems from two valid definitions of racism. Academically, individual cases of discrimination (e.g. a black guy punching you because you're white) are mostly irrelevant, so that definition of racism refers to institutionalised racism, where the entire system discriminates. White people rarely face that. You are using the colloquial definition of racism which is fair enough, but I don't think anyone is claiming that no one ever suffers individual cases of racism.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry. I kinda jumped to conclusions and exploded. I'm not sure of the beliefs of the members I quoted. My post was more aimed at a lot of these tumblr people that absolutely believe that you cannot be racist to white people.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;49585123]Do you truly believe that around 14% of the US population are unrepresented by pure chance?[/QUOTE] They've gotten 12.5% of the oscars since 1994 as shown earlier. That's not unrepresented.

[QUOTE=xbax;49585140]I'm sorry. I kinda jumped to conclusions and exploded. I'm not sure of the beliefs of the members I quoted. My post was more aimed at a lot of these tumblr people that absolutely believe that you cannot be racist to white people.[/QUOTE] Again they are generally using the definition of racism as institutional and not individual. Jumping to the extremes of another perspective is the way that arguments on the internet become so polarised.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;49585123]Do you truly believe that around 14% of the US population are unrepresented by pure chance?[/QUOTE] I'm not going to state as fact that the results of an awards ceremony are the result of racial discrimination unless I have an actual reason to believe so beyond "it's likely". [editline]22nd January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49585149]They've gotten 12.5% of the oscars since 1994 as shown earlier. That's not unrepresented.[/QUOTE] Honestly, I'm interested to know how exactly "underrepresented" is defined in this context.

Diversity quotas are the ultimate form of racism. You're essentially saying a group is so underrepresented that they need freebies and handouts to be on par with everyone else. Solve the issue. Don't just treat symptoms.

[QUOTE=V12US;49585172]Diversity quotas are the ultimate form of racism. You're essentially saying a group is so underrepresented that they need freebies and handouts to be on par with everyone else. Solve the issue. Don't just treat symptoms.[/QUOTE] I don't see anyone suggesting there will or should be quotas though, if anything it's more about a re-shuffling and diversifying of the judging panel which, to me, sounds like the issue here.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49585149]They've gotten 12.5% of the oscars since 1994 as shown earlier. That's not unrepresented.[/QUOTE] Take a look at the best actress role and one mixed race person since 1994. Either way, there's still: [QUOTE=shozamar;49584604] The only people who received nominations from Straight Outta Compton were its two white screenwriters.[/QUOTE] [quote]For the two screenplay races, 17 individuals are nominated... no racial minorities[/quote] The fact that no black actors or directors nominated is not just a quirk of probability. [editline]22nd January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49585161]I'm not going to state as fact that the results of an awards ceremony are the result of racial discrimination unless I have an actual reason to believe so beyond "it's likely". [editline]22nd January 2016[/editline] Honestly, I'm interested to know how exactly "underrepresented" is defined in this context.[/QUOTE] By 'likely' I mean 'basically impossible to occur without a cause'. [editline]22nd January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=V12US;49585172]Diversity quotas are the ultimate form of racism. You're essentially saying a group is so underrepresented that they need freebies and handouts to be on par with everyone else. Solve the issue. Don't just treat symptoms.[/QUOTE] I hope you're not talking to me because I never suggested quotas. You jumped to that. I'm simply saying that there is a problem and there needs to be an effort to solve it. Quotas are on method of which I am very wary, but others exist, including diversifying the panel who select the nominations.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;49585123]Do you truly believe that around 14% of the US population are unrepresented by pure chance?[/QUOTE] It's unlikely, but it's certainly possible. Assuming a 14% black population, if you pick 20 people at random you have a ~4.9% chance of picking no black people. i.e. you'd expect that to happen every ~20.5 years.

[QUOTE=Kljunas;49585274]It's unlikely, but it's certainly possible. Assuming a 14% black population, if you pick 20 people at random you have a ~4.9% chance of picking no black people. i.e. you'd expect that to happen every ~20.5 years.[/QUOTE] Then you factor in best original/adapted screenplay, and it moves to a 0.38% chance, or once every ~250 years. Then best director and you get 0.18% chance or once every 500 years. If this were a medicine it would be in hospitals.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;49585317]Then you factor in best original/adapted screenplay, and it moves to a 0.38% chance, or once every ~250 years.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah my bad, I was only thinking about actors for some reason.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49584631]Is this inherit racism? I only wonder because I don't know. Did the two writers deserve it? Were there contributions to the work greater in comparison to the works of their other coworkers when compared to other works in the industry? And most importantly, Hollywood really cares about it's "Artistic" films so much that they've created formulaic manners of earning an oscar. That's a bigger issue than "not enough black people were nominated" because it systemically plays into it over time.[/QUOTE] see i don't get the dichotomy between either fixing the academy's general stagnation or fixing their arguable racism - it seems to me like just getting some fresh judges who want to go outside their comfort zone would pretty much fix both at once. i mean considering the median age for the panel is 65 or something like that, is it really any surprise that their taste in movies hasn't moved past the 80's in more ways than one? quotas would be overkill, we just need some people who don't want to feel comfortable and safe with names from thirty years ago, people who actively look for challenging movies by guys they haven't heard of. that's gotta be better than a bunch of boring elderly people just by default, right?

[QUOTE=Kljunas;49585357]Oh yeah my bad, I was only thinking about actors for some reason.[/QUOTE] It was a reasonable point. I hadn't provided numbers. [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49585161]I'm not going to state as fact that the results of an awards ceremony are the result of racial discrimination unless I have an actual reason to believe so beyond "it's likely".[/QUOTE] Is the 0.0003% chance of no black person being nominated for Best Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay and Director 2 years in a row enough for you to accept that it is 'likely' that there is a problem.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49585149]They've gotten 12.5% of the oscars since 1994 as shown earlier. That's not unrepresented.[/QUOTE] Just gonna quote my post from the other thread on how this is bullshit [QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49580523]The 12.5% statistic is completely arbitrary. It doesn't show a specific situation or recurring trend, it is a cheap way of manipulating numbers until they spit out the answer you're looking for. Is that still the percentage you get if you take out the 1995 requirement? What if you go by nominations and not wins? Why not bring up Asians and Latinos as well?[/QUOTE]

didn't watch creed, but while straight out of compton was good, it didn't deserve an oscar bears of no nation did, but its netflix so hey

[QUOTE=Cone;49585401]see i don't get the dichotomy between either fixing the academy's general stagnation or fixing their arguable racism - it seems to me like just getting some fresh judges who want to go outside their comfort zone would pretty much fix both at once. i mean considering the median age for the panel is 65 or something like that, is it really any surprise that their taste in movies hasn't moved past the 80's in more ways than one? quotas would be overkill, we just need some people who don't want to feel comfortable and safe with names from thirty years ago, people who actively look for challenging movies by guys they haven't heard of. that's gotta be better than a bunch of boring elderly people just by default, right?[/QUOTE] I'm not making a dichotomy. I'm not saying "It's either racism or it's not". I'm saying "Is this PARTICULAR thing racism?" because he brought it up as if it were an example of defacto racism. I have no doubt, none, that the oscar panel needs to be changed up, given more diversity of age, gender, wage, race, orientation, etc. That's true, 100%. I just wonder when I see someone say "White people got a reward for a movie about black culture" as if they're contribution in and of itself wouldn't possibly be of greater, or different value than the other contributors to the film. Sure, maybe it's racism, maybe it's not, I don't think it does anyone any good to say that it is without a reason.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;49585404]It was a reasonable point. I hadn't provided numbers. Is the 0.0003% chance of no black person being nominated for Best Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay and Director 2 years in a row enough for you to accept that it is 'likely' that there is a problem.[/QUOTE] The problem is that the Oscar nominees aren't randomly selected from the whole of the united states population. You're making the same fallacious comparison that the "12.5% equals perfect representation" people are.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49585415]Just gonna quote my post from the other thread on how this is bullshit[/QUOTE] Neither does "14% of the US population is unrepresented by chance", but I don't see you calling out that bullshit statistical use either. So either we will use bullshit statistics on both sides or none at all. Pick one.

Like it's been said, the Academy isn't the root of all diversity issues in the business. It's only a symptom, but it's also a very highly publicized one, and the biggest (not necessarily the best) representation of western cinema. Bringing in new, open-minded members would help solve part of the issue, regardless of whether it stems from racist sentiments or critics who want to play it safe and vote for things they're comfortable with.

[QUOTE=Dirty_Ape;49584348]TBH, if I was an Oscar voter, I wouldn't have voted for any minorities this year. I can't think of any I've seen that deserve it. I hear Will Smith was good in that football movie and Idris Elba was probably amazing in Beasts of No Nation but I haven't seen it yet. Sam Jackson is the only other black guy I can think of that had a notable performance and I don't think it deserved any awards. I think the lack of minority nominees is totally justified this year.[/QUOTE] I'm gonna play the devil's advocate here: - Idris Elba was good in Beasts of No Nation. Like seriously good, like seriously worth nominating. And decision to not include him was political, but it's not because of his race - because of the studio producing the film. Hollywood fucking hates Netflix and all it represents, and I'm surprised it was even in consideration, one point in the Oscar Rules states that only films with theatrical release first are eligible - Samuel L. Jackson was good in the Hateful Eight. But what was really bothering was how you could see he had fun on the set. Like making speeches about black dinguses and shooting balls was amusing. Academy hates fun, they prefer suffering, pretending to be paraplegic and reminding about Holocaust. Besides, he played the same character he always does, except that one in Django, now that was a real snub for him. - Michael B. Jordan in Creed, well I'd say it was pretty meh. He got knocked out for good, he was buffed, he was okay but everyone forgot about him because it was first Rocky in 30 years with actually good Rocky, so sorry Jordan, Stallone took the spot. - As for Will Smith, mumbling your lines in incomprehensible accent[b]s[/b] is not qualifying for good acting. That film was, what we call, a failed Oscarbait, the premise was decent but it was boring as fuck. So yeah, sorry, I'll stay with the point that there's not much of roles worth nominating. And the very same problem applies to Asians, Latinos and Native Americans, basically anyone who isn't traditionally white. But demanding quotas for awarding ain't gonna fix that.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49585481]Neither does "14% of the US population is unrepresented by chance", but I don't see you calling out that bullshit statistical use either. So either we will use bullshit statistics on both sides or none at all. Pick one.[/QUOTE] That was a hypothetical question not a serious proposition

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49585507]Like it's been said, the Academy isn't the root of all diversity issues in the business. It's only a symptom, but it's also a very highly publicized one, and the biggest (not necessarily the best) representation of western cinema. Bringing in new, open-minded members would help solve part of the issue, regardless of whether it stems from racist sentiments or critics who want to play it safe and vote for things they're comfortable with.[/QUOTE] I agree that newer, fresher members will solve a LOT of this. I don't think it's necessarily "racism", but more people sticking to what they know.

[QUOTE]"Why classify people?"[/QUOTE] I hate this. The people that complain about being defined by their race always DEFINE THEMSELVES BY THEIR RACE.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49585507]Like it's been said, the Academy isn't the root of all diversity issues in the business. It's only a symptom, but it's also a very highly publicized one, and the biggest (not necessarily the best) representation of western cinema. Bringing in new, open-minded members would help solve part of the issue, regardless of whether it stems from racist sentiments or critics who want to play it safe and vote for things they're comfortable with.[/QUOTE] I'm not entirely sure, but I think you get on the academy for achieving certain milestones in your film career. I don't think it's something that people are just "brought on" to. I'd be interested to hear people suggest some alternate voting systems that they would prefer. I mean, I'm not short of complaints when it comes the the Oscars.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49585460]The problem is that the Oscar nominees aren't randomly selected from the whole of the united states population. You're making the same fallacious comparison that the "12.5% equals perfect representation" people are.[/QUOTE] Given that the population of the united states is incredibly massive, and making the assumption that at no point does racism occur to prevent black people getting to the point of an Oscar nomination, then it should be true that black people have a ~13% chance of being chosen. Whilst we could debate deviations of a few percent and you'd have a point that it could be chance, 0 isn't just a bit, randomly out.