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

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;49585656]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.[/QUOTE] but if the average over the last 20 years [I]is[/I] 12.5%, then wouldn't that imply that there [I]is[/I] proper representation? Or is the argument that the Oscars have recently become more discriminatory, and that in the past they overrepresented black nominees? I mean, I don't think it is, but going by the standard you yourself are presenting, it would be.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49585458]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] well it seems we agree on the same course of action so i suppose if there is any racism it'll mostly get stamped out anyway. i guess the only thing to do is mix up the panel and see if people are satisfied

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49585674]but if the average over the last 20 years [I]is[/I] 12.5%, then wouldn't that imply that there [I]is[/I] proper representation? I mean, I don't think it is, but going by the standard you yourself are presenting, it would be quite close.[/QUOTE] Firstly, I'd say that the fact that this has happened two years in a row is enough to say there is a definite current problem, the only thing that statistic could prove is that it is a recent problem, which I doubt it is. Secondly, from what I have read it the representation in smaller categories is relatively accurate, whilst for the big ones black people are few and far between.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49584500][img]http://puu.sh/mFtcR/94a7500e44.jpg[/img] [img]http://puu.sh/mFtdo/bf3ee93b47.jpg[/img] [editline]22nd January 2016[/editline] yet lawrence gets nominated for the critically panned joy because god forbid she miss out a year[/QUOTE] yeah why the fuck isn't dr dre nominated in the best actress category???

Found this article on EW interviewing people who actually voted on the choices [QUOTE]“Nobody can accuse the Academy of being racist — but they can be accused of being out of touch with the younger generation,” says the director. “Straight Outta Compton is a masterpiece, probably the best biopic since Amadeus — but many if not most of the Academy can’t fathom songs like “F— the Police.’ [B]I know many members who wouldn’t even see the film because it represented a culture that they detest or, more accurately, they assume they detest. Younger people, even those under 50, are not only fans of the music, but much more willing to try to empathize with the world depicted in the movie. When the Academy expands to an even younger demo, movies like Straight Outta Compton will stand a chance.”[/B][/QUOTE] [QUOTE][B]“If we’re being honest, my bet is most Academy members didn’t see it,” [/B]says the producer. “I think the older members, those in their 60s and 70s, didn’t think it was a movie for them, and they didn’t watch it. It was one of the best-reviewed movies of the year. It was surprising how good it was, and I felt it should have been rewarded. I made sure it was on my list. But maybe it wasn’t high enough.”[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]“We have no way of knowing why anything with a lot of support doesn’t get in.[B] Compton could have received 2,500 votes in the fourth or fifth slot, but if it doesn’t have at least 350 first-place votes, it gets ignored,”[/B] says the publicist, citing the Academy’s preferential ballot system, which puts greater emphasis on first-place votes. “I don’t think the Academy needs to have its motives addressed, but the weighted balloting system may need to be reconsidered.[B] There isn’t a doubt in my mind that Compton got a lot of votes. The very fact that all the guilds voted for the film proves that. There just weren’t enough first- or second-place votes to get it over the hump.”[/B][/QUOTE] [url]http://www.ew.com/article/2016/01/18/oscars-straight-outta-compton-snub[/url] So its not explicitly racism, it's just that voting on the Oscars really does just come down to literally senior citizens picking their favorite films and it turns out that 60 year old white males aren't the demo for a biopic about Niggaz Wit Attitudes. The voting system is also incredibly dumb. Haven't seen Creed but I'm surprised Michael B Jordan didn't get a nod, all I hear is amazing things.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;49585699]Firstly, I'd say that the fact that this has happened two years in a row is enough to say there is a definite current problem, the only thing that statistic could prove is that it is a recent problem, which I doubt it is. Secondly, from what I have read it the representation in smaller categories is relatively accurate, whilst for the big ones black people are few and far between.[/QUOTE] If 12.5% is the overall statistic, then wouldn't that imply that black nominees were over represented in the past? This is why I just don't buy the racism hypothesis. I don't see why the academy would get more racist over time. seriously, this whole "nominees to average population" thing is just a non starter. This isn't going to go anywhere.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49585722]If 12.5% is the overall statistic, then wouldn't that imply that black nominees were over represented in the past? This is why I just don't buy the racism hypothesis. I don't see why the academy would get more racist over time.[/QUOTE] I expect the answer would come from looking at why they specifically used Oscar winners since 1994, but I will be honest and say I'm not really too interested in trying to compile that data. That said the fact that there were no black people in the main categories for the past two years is definitely not random chance. I should say when I specify racism I'm not just talking about the people in charge of selection being consciously racist, I'm also considering probable differences in the access to connections into the industry, available roles and a whole host of other issues.

Lets be honest if the Oscars had any credibility over who they nominated and who won, Leonardo Di Caprio would already have one.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;49585751]I expect the answer would come from looking at why they specifically used Oscar winners since 1994, but I will be honest and say I'm not really too interested in trying to compile that data. That said the fact that there were no black people in the main categories for the past two years is definitely not random chance. I should say when I specify racism I'm not just talking about the people in charge of selection being consciously racist, I'm also considering probable differences in the access to connections into the industry, available roles and a whole host of other issues.[/QUOTE] If you want to discuss probability, we are going to have to discuss statistics. There is no way around it. There is a serious problem with people getting upset at certain results and then jumping to unfounded conclusions. If you want to actually fix a problem, you need to identify it first. "Well, I can't imagine why it wouldn't be x" is not identifying a problem. You aren't going to fix anything with that kind of wild speculation and sensationalism.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49585807]If you want to discuss probability, we are going to have to discuss statistics. There is no way around it. There is a serious problem with people getting upset at certain results and then jumping to unfounded conclusions. If you want to actually fix a problem, you need to identify it first. "Well, I can't imagine why it wouldn't be x" is not identifying a problem. You aren't going to fix anything with that kind of wild speculation and sensationalism.[/QUOTE] My results show that there has been a problem over the past two years in the representation of black people in the most prestigious categories - I am not qualified to provide the exact causes and weights of the causes for this effect. The 12.5% statistic in some way contradicts that and the solution to that is to investigate both methods to understand the view they give and any biases/flaws in them. I have said I am not bothered enough to do that. I'd be interested in that information if someone has it. I'm not sure where I wildly speculated or sensationalised though.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;49585876]My results show that there has been a problem over the past two years in the representation of black people in the most prestigious categories - I am not qualified to provide the exact causes and weights of the causes for this effect. The 12.5% statistic in some way contradicts that and the solution to that is to investigate both methods to understand the view they give and any biases/flaws in them. I have said I am not bothered enough to do that. I'd be interested in that information if someone has it. I'm not sure where I wildly speculated or sensationalised though.[/QUOTE] I'm glad you're willing to further examine the situation. I think if you want to prove a systemic problem in something, you're going to have to demonstrate a statistical bias, at the very least. And I would suggest, if anything, measuring against roles, not population demographics.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49585916]I'm glad you're willing to further examine the situation. I think if you want to prove a systemic problem in something, you're going to have to demonstrate a statistical bias, at the very least. And I would suggest, if anything, measuring against roles, not population demographics.[/QUOTE] I'd argue that if you were to find no problem when considering roles vs nominations, whilst still finding a problem with population vs nominations, it just indicates the problem is in a different place. Still, as previously mentioned I'd rather play counter strike.

I like what Stacey Dash had to say. “We have to make up our minds,” she said. “Either we want to have segregation or integration. And if we don’t want segregation, then we need to get rid of channels like BET and the BET Awards and the (NAACP) Image Awards where you’re only awarded if you’re black." Blacks have to realize that slavery has been abolished for over 130 years, segregation since the 60s. Either they want integration, or they want to continue being segregated. And if you look at the Music and TV for black "culture" it only reinforces black stereotypes and perpetuates the idea that they are a sub-class of the american culture.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;49584390]Nobody black was nominated because [I]nobody black has done something this year to deserve it.[/I] This is such bullshit, and she's right, boycotting the oscars because we didn't just go "well, you're black so here you go" is downright disrespectful and racist to everyone who did get nominated. The oscars are for actors who did damn good work, its not an affirmative action committee. Get over yourself. You wanna boycott it, fine, we don't want your shitty attitude there this year anyway.[/QUOTE] I suggest you watch Creed and Beasts of No Nation and Hateful 8 before making such asinine statements

[QUOTE=27X;49586078]I suggest you watch Creed and Beasts of No Nation and Hateful 8 before making such asinine statements[/QUOTE] Beasts of No Nation wouldn't get it for being a Netflix show so regardless of how great it was, there's that Creed wasn't really that good in the context you're arguing(IMO), it was more about Stallone than Jordan. Hateful 8, and Sam Jackson, despite being my favourite movie this year, was not oscar worthy by what the Oscars deem "worthy", an entirely different discussion. i'm not trying to defend what he said, but there are reasons why those pieces aren't really likely to win. Honestly, the biggest issue is what the Oscars want. They want the same thing they love every other year and nothing else. That'll continue to cut black and other groups/people out of awards

I feel like a bigger issue for the Oscars are the "members for life" critics and that very title. If they would at least have a regular turnover of new blood and members after so many years, we would probably see a far more diverse amount of movies getting awards they may or may not deserve. I personally believe they're out of touch with the themes and concepts of modern movies. Their criteria is based off of no doubt an older influence. It may not be entirely racistly motivated but the one good thing that thought did bring to our attention was there are inherent flaws in this out-dated membership that should be re-worked. Sticking in race quotas is merely a bandaid to the bigger issue.

Her statement about maybe no black actors 'deserved' to be nominated is being willfully ignorant of what's going on. You can't get nominated if you aren't cast in the role. She speaks as if all actors start from the same place but that's not the case at all. When black actors can routinely get Oscar bait roles, besides in movies about slavery, civil rights, sports, or gangs, THEN we can talk about 'deserve'.

[QUOTE=pocketpunkie;49585976]I like what Stacey Dash had to say. “We have to make up our minds,” she said. “Either we want to have segregation or integration. And if we don’t want segregation, then we need to get rid of channels like BET and the BET Awards and the (NAACP) Image Awards where you’re only awarded if you’re black." Blacks have to realize that slavery has been abolished for over 130 years, segregation since the 60s. Either they want integration, or they want to continue being segregated. And if you look at the Music and TV for black "culture" it only reinforces black stereotypes and perpetuates the idea that they are a sub-class of the american culture.[/QUOTE] My only problem with this is that it's effectively removing the foundation from beneath them without giving them a proper foundation. It's saying, "Here's the ideal, let's remove our current system" without providing any means of reaching the ideal. It's a nice idea on paper, but it's not a complete thought that gets anyone anywhere. If you want to disagree with me on that, I'm willing to hear you out, but you have to explain how removing the BET is going to make blacks more prominent and less marginalized. You can see the evidence of that not being a viable alternative when no black people have been nominated in the past couple years. Is it because black people didn't deserve an oscar? Or is there something more? Consider the type of person that would be voting on the Oscars panel, and then consider some weird statistics like [url=http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/]the fact that people with black-sounding names end up not being employed so much[/url]. Consider the fact that there's a comfort zone for a lot of these voters that prevent them from seeing new films and enjoying different stuff. It's basically a deliberate unwillingness to encounter a different things like, for instance, maybe culture? And from there, even though it's not super-consciously thought of, perhaps that extends to black people that fit specific stereotypes - ones that you apparently don't enjoy. There's an unwillingness to want to interact with black people. I'm willing to place bets that it certainly has to do with the age of these people, and that this unwillingness dissipates the younger people get. That's a bold-sounding claim - I can anticipate that there's people that are probably going to dislike the fact that I'm basically saying that the academy is racist. But, if it's not racism, then what else could it be if not a side-effect of close-mindedness? We can apply this to other things to. I usually get flak in this forum for applying it to women in video games, applying it to black people in poverty, and other stuff too, but it's because it's a simple answer that covers a lot of ground and creates a pathway that allows improvement. Generally whenever I say stuff like that, people respond with "it is what it is", and that strikes me as denial and idleness. And then there's people that say I'm being unfairly antagonistic, which sounds like a defense that prevents an examination of reality, which is all I care for. I don't care if people feel bad - that isn't my intention in the slightest. I'm not into moral superiority. I just want the problem fixed. We don't have to use the word "racism" as a means to belittle others - as a name-calling tactic. It's just something worth pondering: could the academy be racist?

P.S. from 2011, academy members were 94% white people, 76% men, average age of 63. don't have any more recent data but that's something to think about

I don't understand what exactly people are arguing for. Racial quotas or "bonus points' seems like a really dumb idea, especially with non-hispanic whites [URL="http://www.census.gov/population/projections/data/national/2014/summarytables.html"]projected to become a minority within the next 30 years[/URL]. It's been more than half a century since the civil rights act, and as baby boomers are dying out, it seems that most of the people who grew up strongly racist are set to die out too. I feel that if there's an issue, it'll simply be solved with time, not through segregation or giving one race special privileges. I already face enough problems getting scholarships, and I actually receive a score penalty due to my race.

[QUOTE=TFA;49592076]I don't understand what exactly people are arguing for. Racial quotas or "bonus points' seems like a really dumb idea, especially with non-hispanic whites [URL="http://www.census.gov/population/projections/data/national/2014/summarytables.html"]projected to become a minority within the next 30 years[/URL]. It's been more than half a century since the civil rights act, and as baby boomers are dying out, it seems that most of the people who grew up strongly racist are set to die out too. I feel that if there's an issue, it'll simply be solved with time, not through segregation or giving one race special privileges. I already face enough problems getting scholarships, and I actually receive a score penalty due to my race.[/QUOTE] No one's asking for quotas. No one's asking to put white people into a garbage compactor. I'm just saying that we've got a group of judges in the academy that don't represent even young people, let alone black people. Also, regarding your scholarship problem, did you consider my [url=http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/]stat that people with "black" names are less likely to be employed[/url]? We're predisposed to not accepting their applications. The answer isn't just saying "all this black stuff has to go". You don't just rip their foundation from underneath them without establishing a better one. To me, that sounds like, "Well, if I can't succeed in their awards that exist because they're trying to support themselves when not a lot of other people will, then they shouldn't either." We've still got some ground to cover before we can really say we've hit where we need to be that doesn't require specialized scholarships and stuff.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;49592316]No one's asking for quotas. No one's asking to put white people into a garbage compactor. I'm just saying that we've got a group of judges in the academy that don't represent even young people, let alone black people. Also, regarding your scholarship problem, did you consider my [url=http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/]stat that people with "black" names are less likely to be employed[/url]? We're predisposed to not accepting their applications. The answer isn't just saying "all this black stuff has to go". You don't just rip their foundation from underneath them without establishing a better one. To me, that sounds like, "Well, if I can't succeed in their awards that exist because they're trying to support themselves when not a lot of other people will, then they shouldn't either." We've still got some ground to cover before we can really say we've hit where we need to be that doesn't require specialized scholarships and stuff.[/QUOTE] With regards to the first block of your post: that's more than fair. I'm all in favor of new judges, and I think judges that proportionally represent American society would be a wonderful thing. With regards to your second block: That's not at all what I said. I succeeded in getting my scholarship, but I had to work harder to get it because of my white skin. It's interesting that you interpreted it that way, though. Maybe a better solution than "give blacks and hispanics free points, but take them away from asians and whites" would be to ignore race, name, and personal details altogether and assign an ID to each individual. Once they were accepted, the individual could be contacted and the personal details confirmed. I just don't understand how you jumped from me questioning affirmative action to me wanting to, "just rip their foundation from underneath them without establishing a better one."

its a crime that Michael B Jordan didnt get nominated for Creed but its not racist

The "kerfuffle" involves setting term limits on the nomination committee, something that should have existed in the first place regardless of diversity issues. People are just getting salty that the asspats gravy train is coming to a screeching halt

The reason you weren't nominated or didn't get an award is not because you're black. That's the bottom line. It's probably because of an equally silly reason, but not a racial one

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;49587063]Her statement about maybe no black actors 'deserved' to be nominated is being willfully ignorant of what's going on. You can't get nominated if you aren't cast in the role. She speaks as if all actors start from the same place but that's not the case at all. When black actors can routinely get Oscar bait roles, besides in movies about slavery, civil rights, sports, or gangs, THEN we can talk about 'deserve'.[/QUOTE] Actually it's funny, because not long ago there was a huge debate in UK about "actors starting from the same place", but the discussion wasn't about racial background but wealth - basically it was impossible to have an acting breakthrough in England if you weren't an alumni of prestigious and expensive film & art school like e.g. Eton. I agree with the statement that there's not enough diversity in roles for minorities though. Not only black actors, but virtually everyone - Asian, Arab, Latino, Hindi, it applies to every single ethnic minority.

[QUOTE=TFA;49593662]With regards to the first block of your post: that's more than fair. I'm all in favor of new judges, and I think judges that proportionally represent American society would be a wonderful thing. With regards to your second block: That's not at all what I said. I succeeded in getting my scholarship, but I had to work harder to get it because of my white skin. It's interesting that you interpreted it that way, though. Maybe a better solution than "give blacks and hispanics free points, but take them away from asians and whites" would be to ignore race, name, and personal details altogether and assign an ID to each individual. Once they were accepted, the individual could be contacted and the personal details confirmed. I just don't understand how you jumped from me questioning affirmative action to me wanting to, "just rip their foundation from underneath them without establishing a better one."[/QUOTE] [quote]I feel that if there's an issue, it'll simply be solved with time, not through segregation or giving one race special privileges.[/quote] It sounds like you're denying affirmative action and race-specific awards, which for a lot of people is all they've got. It's harder for you to get a scholarship, but these race-based scholarships are trying to integrate race into better things. It's trying to move their race up a notch. It isn't out of hate or spite or anything, it's just giving a boost to equalize the playing field. I wouldn't have a problem with your proposed scholarship idea, though.

Good ol' Sam Jackson should've been nominated this year in my opinion. The Hateful Eight may not have been everyone's favourite movie this year, but Jackson did a great job.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;49585245=] The fact that no black actors or directors nominated is not just a quirk of probability. ].[/QUOTE] The thing is, apart from Silvester Stallone who may be considered of mixed race due to being Latino (?), I've never heard of a mixed race director, let alone black.

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49597073]The thing is, apart from Silvester Stallone who may be considered of mixed race due to being Latino (?), [B]I've never heard of a mixed race director, let alone black.[/B][/QUOTE] Top two black directors I would say are Spike Lee and Denzel Washington. Then this list from google makes my two selections seem pathetic. [url]https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=black+movie+directors[/url]