I've taken a fleeting interest in the #oscarsowhite controversy, including most recently the hot water that Charlotte Rampling has landed herself in http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jan/23/charlotte-rampling-i-regret-that-oscars-racism-comment-was-misinterpreted.

But what no one seems to be saying is "Who are the non-white actors and others who should have been in the nominations this year?"

It is passing strange that there are only actors and others of European origin up for awards this year (including Rampling). You would have thought that black, brown and yellow (if it is still politically correct to use those terms) people would have had some sort of a presence.

But I wonder if the "fault" lies elsewhere than the Oscars themselves, which most serious movie buffs don't take seriously anyway. Perhaps it is a problem with the industry which may predominantly only hire Caucasians, or perhaps it is audiences who may prefer to watch movies by Caucasians.

The Oscars are really about the US film industry. Perhaps it says most about their focus being country specific, and commercial, and based more on commerciality than artistic values?

"You would have thought that black, brown and yellow (if it is still politically correct to use those terms) people would have had some sort of a presence"

If they have presence as consumers then there is a large untapped market - which advertisers would ordinarily not hesitate to take advantage of.

In reply to that one might say that movie makers could be like the US car manufacturers - who continue to make large cars because they are more profitable per unit and are prepared to spend extra on advertising than make the cars that consumers really want.

If that is the case the end game could see other countries making the films that appeal to that (assumed) market States side.

Frankly, for some decades it has been de rigeur for film makers, certainly those catering for the mass consumption, TV series and so on, to over-egg and make overly obvious their multicultural casts and multicultural issues. As a student it was fun sitting with pizzas watching The Box or a movie while US students pointed out the various cultural groups represented. It was apparent that the dead hand of the PC police was active. Now one could say the same about Australia and probably more so.

As they have categories for best male actor, best female actor, why don't they simply do away with the pretence and have a category for best black actor and actress.

Hi Graham,

In an ideal world actors should be judged on
their performance alone. However when the
academy membership is made up of predominantly
white men over the age of 50 - this composition of the
membership (being very homogenous) will
be reflected in their choices. And its
not something that will probably change any time
soon.

Diversity is good for showbiz both in front of
and behind the camera. Talk is that the Academy is
planning to make changes around the 2020 year.

Tim Gray - Awards Editor for "Variety" writes that
last year's Oscars nominations drew howls of protests
for the lack of diversity.
This year it's even worse.

So can you nominate a movie that was neglected that would have made the difference Foxy? It's a bit rich to accuse people of being racist just because they are male and white! There must be some evidence of that. If the only films they have to choose from star white actors and actresses, then that's what they're going to choose, but it is evidence of nothing more than a restricted choice.

Dear Graham,

Yes, I'd be delighted to nominate a movie.
One that deserved a nomination last year -
"Selma."

And perhaps this link might be also useful:

http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/oscar-nominations-2016-diversity-white-1201674903/

Hi Foxy. Thanks for pointing out that Selma was an Academy Award winner. Seems in last year's Academy Awards race was not an issue. So I'm still wondering how this year's awards are supposed to be different. Does anyone have an example of a movie that should have been in this year's Academy Awards and wasn't, as a proof that racism was at work? By the way, someone has suggested to me Beasts of No Nation. As it wasn't widely released I can understand why it didn't receive anything. The Oscars don't seem to be about art house movies, or telemovies.

Dear Graham,

Unfortunately the film "Selma" was snubbed
at last year's Oscars.

1) David Oyelowo - was not nominated
in the Best Actor category. He played the role
of Martin Luther King.

2) Ava DuVernay - was not nominated
in the Director's category. She would have been
the first black woman to receive this nomination.

3) The film did not win the Best Picture award.

The only win was for - "Best Song."

Hi Graham, the movie that I have read about most during this controversy is
'The Hateful Eight', with Samual L Jackson and Kurt Russell starring.

Apparently, Samual L Jackson is very good in his cowboy bounty hunter role, and there are grumblings about the fact he wasn't even nominated for an award.
Mind you, neither was Kurt Russell, and the violent Quentin Tarantino 'R' rated movies aren't everyone's cup of tea.
My husband is desperate to see it...as a cowboy movie!

I would hate to see the Oscars taken over by politically correct ideas like ensuring every race is represented in the judging panel. However, it does seem to be a little stacked against out of the ordinary movies like 'The Hateful Eight', and the lesbian love affair movie 'Carol' , where Cate Blanchett apparently excels.
Or is it just that some well-off Americans involved in the arts are generally quite conservative in their views on some subjects?

Suseonline,

You are saying that there are not enough Oscars to cater for your particular interests, eg lesbian flicks. However as you state, the films you enjoy are being made.

The likelihood is that the acting is not superior.

Too easy, next?

Well the academy either sat down and decided to exclude blacks, or they made their decision based on whatever merit factors they use. Historically the least “racist” segments were sports and the arts, talent was always recognized. I believe there are more legs in Mel Gibson’s statements that it helps to be Jewish in Hollywood.

So the fight is between the 'Afro-'Merican' political correctness and established Jewish PC and back to the Frankfurt School?

http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/

Head-butting of the big hitters of PC. Er, what about the 'Wonderful Womyn".

A three-way biff with no holds barred?

It is all 'White Mens' fault of course. That goes without saying. But how to divvy up the spoils?

Maybe politically correct Australia can show the way. The country where the major football league is very, very PC sensitive and even has a second competition for Indigenous.

Taking the PC lead from OZ that would require affirmative action for the main Oscars event and additional Oscars exclusively for Negro-'Mericans and for Wonderful Womyn. Hold on, Suseonline will be along to demand separate Oscars for lesbians, which should be a done deal too!

The possibility at this stage is four Oscars for a single performance:

1X Open Oscar (and thanks for the multicultural sensitivity)
+
1X Negro-'Merican Special Oscar (the actor is black)
+
1X Womyn's Special Oscar (the actor has now decided she is a woman trapped in a man's body)
+
1X Lesbian Special Oscar (the one who is a woman trapped in a man's body has 'evolved' and fancies women)

The forum's very sensitive and easily upset will inform if more categories of Special Oscars are required.

This appears to be a somewhat complex issue.

Who really knows what motivates the Academy
voter's choices. We can speculate all we want.

Statistics show that it is the Asians and
Hispanics that per population size are
overlooked at the Oscars not blacks.

The black lobby argues that Oscar voters are
94% white, 76% male and the average age is 63.
So who knows where their interests lie and what
they are interested in. It may not be a question
of colour, gender, or anything else.It may simply be what
subjects they're interested in. What appeals.
Movies, like art - are subjective.

The black lobby is getting its work together -
and undoubtedly pressure will be placed on the
Academy to make future changes. Whether this will work
we'll have to wait and see. We're told that there
will be a boycott of the Oscars this year by
some very well known black celebrities.
And comments will also be made at the ceremony
itself by well known guests.

Should be an interesting evening.

Oh my god!

Surely this is just another push by a minority group, upset that they aren't good enough to get their noses deep into the trough.

It merely indicates what you end up with when too many journalists have studied at a university, rather than the school of hard knocks.

If we could just fill their navels up with cement, they might start looking at something important, rather than navel gazing.

There is enough hatred of white people without self-hating whites themselves supporting whingers who don't realise that the colour of their skin (black in this case) doesn't automatically confer talent and rights on them.

Hasbeen adds to the problem by blaming university education for journalists as the reason the Oscars haven't included African Americans this year!
I imagine the media reports what other actors have said Hasbeen, so your hatred of intellectuals doesn't make sense in this case.

Others blame the Jews. A racist accusation of the highest degree. Maybe that nasty Catholic Mel Gibson is behind that particular thought?

What I am wondering is who decides who is on the board of judges for handing out Oscars? Would that be other groups of old white men?

Maybe it is time to include a group that represents the wider community, rather than old white men? It is not that there is a problem with listening to their views as such, it is just that we shouldn't have to ONLY hear their views.

The same goes for all forms of politics, military, and businesses too.
Certainly, the world couldn't do any worse than it is now under the predominant older male 'leadership'?

sonofgloin,

What you have offered is a false dichotomy. Racism can be direct or indirect.

AJ, all I said is that they were excluding blacks by choice or they were not......your dichotomy comment regarding direct or indirect exclusion is about the application of exclusionism......nothing to do with my observation.

Yay! 'Asians and Hispanics' have been added to the list for special Oscars.

What about Hobbits? How many Hobbits win Oscars? Discrimination!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmM6kN1NM8k

While on the subject,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNYJNI7HSsA

A hobbit can't get an Oscar. It's a fictional
character. Oscars are given to real people
according to the rules of the Academy, in
various categories be they -
actors, directors, composers, and so on.
It's an Academy Award of Merit. Be they white, black,
Asian, or Hispanic.

Here’s what you said, sonofgloin…

<<Well the academy either sat down and decided to exclude blacks, or they made their decision based on whatever merit factors they use.>>

This leaves room for only two possibilities: ‘direct racism’ or ‘no racism at all’. Which is a false dichotomy.

I don't know what you're waffling on about when you speak of the "application of exclusionism".

OK AJ, no more waffle about semantics.......cheers.

I can't get enthusiastic about this. A bunch of insincere overpaid plastic people backslapping each other, and saying what a fantastic job they are doing, before they all go off to some extravagant after party to snort cocaine and bonk each others partners.
The majority of Hollywood movies are rubbish, and deserve the dustbin award. I do believe it wasn't until Tony Curtis demanded that Sidney Poitier be given equal star billing with himself in 'The Defiant Ones' 1958 that a black actor had got to star, until then they were given co-star or less.
In the 1930's a baby Shirley Temple was given top rating over Bill "Bojangles" Robinson in movies. she was white, he was black. ST couldn't act, but looked cute as American apple pie, Robinson could dance a storm but was the wrong colour.

Paul405, "ST couldn't act"

What a silly, uninformed, catty comment that is. Total bollocks of course, but that's a jealous, fabricating, Stalinist Green for you. She was an enormous drawcard at a time when America and the World needed a bright and optimistic personality.

"Fox, which had owed $42million and teetered on the brink of bankruptcy, came out of the red entirely thanks to a six-year-old child.

After a protracted legal dispute, Temple's salary at Fox was increased more than six-fold, with her mother now receiving $250 a week. For each film completed, there was also a $15,000 bonus placed in trust for her, later more than doubling to $35,000.

In all this time, however, all the world's highest earning child actually saw of her salary was $13 a month in pocket money"
http://tinyurl.com/mnljhrb

You are fixated about The Greens, I offer an opinion and you attack me as a "Stalinist Green" I am not aware of any Green policy on Shirley Temple, do you and Jim have a fascist policy on ST, only a conceited buffoon would take the attitude you do. You do a quick 'Google' on ST and then post it as if its your own personal knowledge.
I agree Shirley Temple was a draw card, a top star, but she wasn't much of an actor, as she grew up she was unable to obtain roles in films. Her co-star in many films Bill "Bojangles" Robinson also couldn't act, he was a dancer. Contemporaries of Robinson's like Buddy Ebsen, also a fine dancer, but not as good as Robinson, were given star billing and paid accordingly. Robinson received comparatively little for his films.
Children were exploited by Hollywood, you say ST's pay was increased 6 fold, point in question. In the early days it was common when directing children for an assistant off set, to prod children with a stick to get them to start acting, thus the term "prodding". Children were also forced to perform dangerous stunts for the camera. Mickey Rooney, a fine actor, was injured as a child when performing a stunt in the 1930's, that fortunately did not deprive the world of a great talent over many years

Paul1405,

LOL Another who plays victim. It is a leftist pastime - throw manure and when your fabrications are exposed, claim victimhood.

Wasn't it you who used the site to try to get posters to go to a knees-up with the abominable Lee Rhiannon, your 'good friend' and 'fellow Green', 'Auntie' (cringeworthy) as you often describe her.

You should get a job and work hard as Shirley Temple did, while always presenting a cheerful face to the world.

Yeah, that is NOT the way of the Stalinist NSW 'Watermelon' Greens who bitch and protest instead. Mine you, the Greens Senators know how to live and more fool to the 'Useful Idiots' who are taken in by them.

The Greens and "Stalinism?"

Really?

What a quaint mindset.

Next we'll be hearing the "Reds under the beds,"
the "Yellow Peril," and "Bring back the
White Australia" policy.

Some people seem not to have moved out of the past
it seems. Happily the rest of the country has.

Beach, how do you sleep at night, with all those reds under the bed. Not that its any of you business I actually have a job and have had since the age of 16, that is about 45 years. What about you? One of your heroes in life Hermann Goering was "always presenting a cheerful face to the world" your kinda of guy!

Senator Lee Rhiannon, a hero of mine, another hero of your's Senator Joseph Mccarthy, if you were around in the 1950's I'm sure you would be McCathy's number one assistant, cleaning the "Communists" out of Hollywood!

For those interested may I suggest that you Google
a list of black actors who have won the Oscar over
the years. It's quite interesting and goes back to
the late 1930s. From Best Actor, Best Actress, Best
Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Cinematography,
and so on. And that's the ones who won. There's many
more who were nominated - some more than once.

The Golden Raspberries is more fun: Cameron Diaz, Gwyneth Paltrow, Johnny Depp, Eddie Murphy and Channing Tatum as examples. What's not to like about that?

Fox and others might comment on James "Jamie" Dornan.

Who is James Dornan?

He's not an actor that I've heard of.

A grey area for you because he is not black, but think hard and long.

If he was black he would still have earned a coveted raspberry (and your approval).

OTB,

This is a discussion dealing with the topic -
"oscarsowhite," which Graham started.

Do try sticking to the subject, instead of trying to
stick it to me. :-)

It is relevant to the topic. The Golden Raspberries is highly competitive too and talent and performance the yardstick. Eddie made the grade, excelling oo, as previously acknowledged.

The alleged 'discrimination' against 'Negro-Americans' some actors in the Oscars is most likely largely self-serving. Certainly when one looks at earnings and opportunity, being black is no impediment. It is no disqualifier for a Raspberry either, as proved.

The topic under discussion is the Oscars
not any other awards. The complaints being
made were about films that had black actors,
and directors, and casts, who were outstanding but
were simply passed over both this year and
last, especially ones like
"Selma."
The "relevancy" lies with the beholder.

Here's a link that may be of interest.

It deals with "diversity in Hollywood>"

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/01/19/463590839/diversity-in-hollywood-heres-what-on

Foxy,

Selma was a box office disaster. This is not a great start for winning an Oscar.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Many blacks would probably disagree.
Still, as I stated earlier - it's all
subjective and in the eyes of the beholder.
An Australian audience would have loved
Baz Lehrmann's film - "Australia," was it
a box-office hit?

Foxy,

The Box office is a reference to the money received. A box office disaster is a film that very few people paid to see. What it means is that the audience voted with their feet, and what the audience thinks carries a lot of weight at the Oscars.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Of course if people don't go and see a certain
film it does carry weight. That's a no-brainer.
But we also need to ask why people do not
go to see these films - when the critics are
unanimous in their praise, and then the film
is a disaster at the box office.

I still believe it also has to do with what appeals
to the Academy members - who gets nominated and who
doesn't.

I remember the year that "Shawshank Redemtion,"
lost out to "Forrest Gump,"
Come On!

Fox, "But we also need to ask why people do not go to see these films - when the critics are unanimous in their praise, and then the film is a disaster at the box office"

When the revolution comes, eh? Then the re-educated public will see the films they are supposed to see and like them - just like North Korea.

OTB,

I'm worried about you.

You seem obsessed with Revolutions.
And all things Socialist, et al.
You manage to bring these topics
into just about every one of your posts -
no matter what the topic - appropriate
or not.

But in this discussion they're not
appropriate - or are you expressing your
subconscious. It's not appropriate talking
about Revolutions and North Korea when the
discussion is about the
highest movie awards - the Oscars, of a
capitalistic country like the USA.

Try sticking to the topic.
You can do it.
Give it a go.

Here's the link that explains why "Selma"
did not win for best picture:

http://newrepublic.com/article/121113/selma-oscar-snub-why-film-wont-win-best-picture

Foxy you are very patient with some of the comrades on this forum... :)

My mother wants me to go and see 'Carol' with her this weekend (?), so I will get to see if I think Kate Blanchett should have been nominated for an Oscar or not.

The media seem to think she wasn't nominated because of the subject matter of the film. Lesbian love apparently didn't appeal to the conservative old males who hold all the power when giving out Oscars.
Or...maybe she just wasn't that good in this movie?

Suseonline,

Your post and Fox's say a lot about your and her biases. Neither of you is particularly enamoured with 'Whites'(sic), especially 'White' men. You are not so keen on seniors which is expected for social rule-breakers who for example, want to trash the Marriage Act because it represents a cultural tradition and morality you despise.

You yourself are the forum's expert on gays and posted often on anal sex, even where no-one else had mentioned it(?!). Strangely though it is only recently that you have started to refer to lesbians. Odd that is, but hey, whatever comes out in the wash.

Your propensities, like Fox's, are your own affair and freedom of speech is the single most distinguishing feature and most important, that separates democratic, tolerant Australia from many other nations in the UN.

Just saying, that it would be a very great surprise if Fox and yourself didn't find offence and of course it MUST be 'White' male seniors at the root of it.

Kate Blanchett has won many of the glittering prizes of acting and she has won often. Applying Occam's razor, if she didn't win this time it is because another did better. Too easy, next?

OTB,

I don't hate white men.

I married one.

What I don't find attractive is men of any
colour who act like the cast from the
film "Deliverance," snaggletooth, hill-billies.

LOL Is that you, Hera?

Gynocentrism: From Feudalism to the Modern Disney Princess
By Peter Wright

Yes Foxy, I married a white man too. He's in his 50's now as well, but I think that is still young!
As usual Onthebeach lashes out with disgusting comments when he wants a fight.
I couldn't be bothered this morning though.

I will let you know what I think of the movie 'Carol'.
Cheers,
Suse.

Dear Suse,

Thanks for that.

I'm looking forward to hearing from you about
the film. I image that Cate's acting will
be as always excellent. She's a talented actress.

Kate is certainly talented Foxy, but I am wondering how I will go seeing a movie about a lesbian love affair with my very conservative 84 year old mother!
Kate is her favorite actress though....

Dear Suse,

I'm sure that your mum will surprise you.
Besides I'm sure that Cate will impress
with her acting ability. Her character
will be one you will both sympathise with
she'll be so confincing. She'll win you both over.