Handwringing: The Ongoing, Important but Not Always Helpful #OscarsSoWhite Conversation
Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 1:00PM 
Have you been following the #OscarsSoWhite discussion? Or rather the shouting? Discussion happens after the fact so we waited 48 hours. There was a lot of knee jerk anger on the day of the Oscar Nominations and many bold statements. Some were totally understandable. Others had us wondering if we've been watching a different Oscars for the past quarter century than anyone else.
If you can't read another word about this we'll understand and hope you'll come back for the next article. But if you'd like to discuss and are willing to think about diversity as a wider and more important topic than a list of 20 names published this year and who or who isn't on it, than read on.
First, I need to get something off my chest...
Though I too wish we could have more racial equity at the Oscars (I still can't let Viola's Oscar loss go! And that's just the tip of the iceberg) I think the anger directed at the Academy is often as ugly as their own difficulties at recognizing life outside their own limited world view. Oscar voters have historically had trouble with gay films (Carol is the latest victim... oh, they weren't tragic? We can't sympathize!) and black films of course -- that's well documented. But they've also been ridiculously resistant to Asian cinema (unless the name Ang Lee was attached) even in the foreign film category.
But the anger at the Academy often takes ugly shape. Recently there was a tweet which Murtada and Jose pointed out to me that was upsetting. And here it is...
Obviously this is an attempt at reversing the joke of white people being too ignorant to distinguish POC from one another. But is reversing the joke less offensive? Will treating actresses like shit -- suggesting that they're all reducable to one person because they are white -- help the cause of black actors? I think not.
It is enormously disrespectful to suggest that a legendary European septugenarian is indistinguishable from a two time Oscar winning Australian goddess who is indistinguisable from an Irish child star coming into her own as a movie star and so on. This is not a progressive plea for diversity, it's closer to bullying. And it's par for the course for our misogynistic culture. Upset about something? Attack women! (You don't need a good reason. Everyone's doing it all the time.)
A non-hateful, sometimes edifying, but still problematic impulse is to publish lists suggesting replacements for the white actors who were nominated -- this is a relatively new phenomenon since the #OscarsSoWhite thing started just last Oscar season and is only two years old. The Academy has been publishing lists of new invitees for a handful of years now and every year we have seen the Academy become MORE diverse (not less) so it has to be coincidence and a direct result of which films are made and campaigned (both problems external to the Academy) that have seen the acting lists backtrack in this way.
These 'all POC' lists that get published each year -- or, rather, the past two years-- always pretend that it's easy to nominate POC in every category, despite how few choice roles they get (one of the real problems). Consider this well meaning tweet.
What if ALL the acting Oscar nominees were non-white? Here are 20 eligible acclaimed performances by actors of color pic.twitter.com/g5ELu3wTcr
— Apollo (@thisisapollo) January 16, 2016
This is cute and makes its point to an extent. Yes, actors of color do good work each year even though they have far less opportunity than white actors (again not the Academy's fault at all). But do my eyes deceive me (I'm overdo for the annual eye exam) or is that the ghost from The Revenant in the bottom tier? If it is, suggesting that this floating cameo, the latest member of Leonardo DiCaprio's infamous Dead Wives Club is "acclaimed" or even, by implication, worthier than a Rachel McAdams or a Jennifer Jason Leigh in full bodied character roles (whether or not you like their work) helps no argument unless you're arguing for a quota system. Does anyone really want that for awards? However compromised awards and "Best" lists are by campaign budgets, levels of fame, laziness of voters, and systemic injustices, they spring (at least originally) from the impulse to discuss merit.
Our friend Joe Reid made a similar argument on Decider filling out all 20 nominee slots with actors of color and though Joe is smart and has great taste that list too, however fun and well written, is also a disingenuous exercize. He fudges the rules to include people like Ibreheim Ahmed in Timbuktu and Qi Shu in The Assassin -- neither of whom are Oscar eligible. Rules don't get fudged for white actors even in the current system people dislike so much that favors white actors. The rules are still the rules.
The bigger problem: of the 26 actors cited in these two combined lists if you remove skin color from the equation 80% of them would still have zero chance in hell of a nomination.
The biggest problem: some would never ever be touted as "someone who shoulda been nominated" and skin color alone shouldn't qualify you to be named "best".
Those of us who want diversity have to be reasonable if we want to be taken seriously! The exceptions to this 'it wouldn't have happened anyway' pet peeve (which is problematic in its own artistically defeatist way, I should add) are, by my estimation as someone who has followed the Oscars since the 1980s and gets how they work (for the most part), are five... nine if you're being generous:
There were five viable acting contenders this past season who are people of color - no women though. (Categories listed are where they were campaigned)
- ACTOR: Michael B Jordan, Creed
- ACTOR: Will Smith, Concussion
- SUPPORTING ACTOR: Idris Elba, Beasts of No Nation ... the only statistical "snub" for a person of color this year since he had plentiful precursor support
- SUPPORTING ACTOR: Benicio del Toro, Sicario
- SUPPORTING ACTOR: Jason E Mitchell, Straight Outta Compton
There were only 4 other feasible nominees who are people of color but all were extreme longshots
- ACTOR: Samuel L Jackson (The Hateful Eight) Popular assumption is often not based on fact and Tarantino movies don't have a great track record for acting nominations versus how celebrated their acting is in popular culture. Look it up. John Travolta in Pulp Fiction is the sole lead acting nominee from a Tarantino film. But yes SLJ is very good in the film.
- SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Angela Bassett (Chi-Raq) Oscar is usually terrified by this level of in your face confrontation in message movies, no matter the color. But yes she is excellent in the film.
- SUPPORTING ACTOR: Oscar Isaac (Ex-Machina) Sci-fi is the Academy's actors branch least favorite genre (they prefer ANYTHING to sci-fi). Many of us have never understood this but it is nevertheless completely true statistically. But yes he's superb in the film.
- SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Tessa Thompson (Creed). Yes, a lot of actresses over the years have been nominated for playing sidelined roles that can best be described as "the girlfriend" but it usually takes being in a Best Picture nominee to accomplish that unless you are a) already famous or b) have juicier "clips" than she gets. But yes she's very good in the film.
[Yes I left off Tangerine, easily in my top ten this year, but let's be reasonable. When was the last time the Academy was interested in no budget DIY LGBT comedies? That's right, never.]
Unfortunately, wildly optimistic and justice-seeking lists like these (not accounting for those 9 performances) as well as the similarly overstuffed "female directors Hollywood should hire" lists, can cloud very righteous arguments about diversity by inadverently implying that skin color and genitalia are the only criteria that should matter. This is a terrible message to send out because it's the message we're already getting from Hollywood; the only difference being which color and which type of genitalia.
In the anger around this issue each year people willfully disregard 1) the field of competitors, 2) the actual eligibility of the films they've seen, 3) the quality of the roles they have or haven't seen, 4) the creative challenges faced and how well people conquered them, 5) whether or not the actor campaigned 6) whether or not the actor is famous and 7) whether or not lead actors were fraudulently campaigning in their supporting category making less room for them to have a reasonable shot at a nomination 8) the depth and size of the parts the actos played. None of those absolutely crucial elements seem to matter to people when they are politically riled up.
But I propose that these things do and should matter and people should speak more carefully or at least educate themselves on how the Oscars work before they want them torn down or even before they build a list of suggestions on how to fix the matter.
On Creed
The most unfortunate victim of racial inequity and systemic problems this year is not Straight Outta Compton (though that's where the media's focus seems to be) but Creed. Creed should have been a no brainer for Warner Bros to push crazy hard the second the executives got their first look at it. Not only because momentum is important to awards (Ryan Coogler's debut feature Fruitvale did not receive Oscar nominations but it won plenty of "it's worthy" conversation -- the perfect volley for a future awards strike) but because it is very good and it is directly connected to Oscar's own history (Rocky, 1976). Oscar likes thinking about itself as the early precursor success of Trumbo reminds us.
What was it that prevented WB from seeing the potential Oscar gold in Creed? What was it that prevented precursors from pushing it? Who decided that Michael B Jordan couldn't compete with more regular Oscar Best Actor players despite giving such an emotionally full star-making performance (again) that runs circles around some of the actual nominees?
We can blame the Oscars for ignoring Creed and Jordan -- except for Sylvester Stallone's moving work -- but Oscar isn't the whole problem.
FUN 'CREED' TRIVIA: Stallone, now the boxing mentor, is the exact same age now that Burgess Meredith was as *his* trainer in ROCKY (1976)
— Nathaniel Rogers (@nathanielr) July 1, 2015
I voted for Michael B Jordan when I got my Critics Choice Ballot (even though we only had 3 votes in the category - and yes he's on my Best Actor list) and he won ONE major prize (NSFC) very late in the game, but for most of the season beyond African American critics groups and a few regionals who don't have much pull or history, he was ignored. Why weren't more people rallying? It's worth noting that a lot of people who write about the Oscars each year at websites and in papers and online magazines also vote as members of this or that "precursor" whether it's small critics groups or televised shows like the Critics Choice, or big deal but non televised stuff like NBR or one of the major critics societies. The media contributes each year to who is included in "the conversation" so why, when most people ignored Jordan this season, were they then upset that Oscar didn't nominate him?
I think this is a very reasonable question to ask but it's a complicated question since it implicates everyone. It's so much easier to just blame a monolothic institution like OSCAR. There's a whiff of hypocrisy to blaming Oscar if you ask me. They don't vote in a vacuum. If you don't advocate for worthy players shouldn't you shut up when Oscar ignores the same worthy players?
Progress and Forward Thinking
Consider advocacy but let's use it wisely. I ask people to consider, however put out they are by the gender and racial inequities, that talent and achievement should always matter. So let's get out there and champion actors of any color who are doing great work and stop focusing on any given list of 20 people as if that one list is the be all and end all of a diversity report card for Hollywood. The Oscars are only part of Hollywood's massive empire. And the racial injustices of Hollywood are reflected in the Oscars but never wholly accurately. It's easy to be blind to signs of sure progress (there was a ton this year -- most noticeably that the biggest film of all time cast a black man, a woman, and a hispanic man as its leads) when your eyes are red with anger.
The laser focus on and annual gripes about the plight of black actors in Hollywood also does a disservice to diversity initiatives because it pretends that black actors are the only people who are marginalized. This will come as shocking news to the many POC behind the scenes or Asian actors (who are the least reocgnized in Hollywood history) or you know women -- who happen to be half the human race! Phyllis Nagy, Oscar nominated screenwriter of Carol, asked people who were surely upset about the Carol Best Picture snub to focus on the good -- four female screenwriters were nominated this year! That is quite a nice number considering the heavily male membership of voting groups -- only the actors and costuming branches seem to have anything like gender balance. We also had several nominations for POC from films like The Revenant, Amy, Embrace of the Serpent, and Theeb, and a trans person being nominated for Original Song!
And though the year's best film (Carol) was shut out of Best Picture, three films centering around women (Room, Brooklyn, Mad Max Fury Road) made it in which is more than usual!
Mark Harris recently tweeted a series of comments about this that I think are worth sharing though I'll just collect them in one quote because it was several tweets.
The problem w/ "The Academy's racist" is that it treats it as an institution that can be lobbied in some way. It isn't. It's just voters and campaigns, and a shifting crop of movies from an industry that is just starting to address its own massive and systemic racism.
So while I think #OscarsSoWhite shines a useful light on a larger issue, I'll just note that the Oscars are not what primarily need fixing. I question whether AMPAS can do anything but what it's doing: A sustained and wholly transparent years-long push to diversify its ranks.
But of course, I'd be eager to hear any better suggestions.
Well said. I'd also love to hear any better suggestions. And I especially would love for people to use their anger to suggest ACTUAL SOLUTIONS not just 'Burn it down' which Sasha Stone seems to be promoting at Awards Daily. Lighting fire to the Dolby, even if only figuratively, won't make Hollywood more diverse. It just punishes the messenger instead of wondering who is writing the message or treating a symptom but not worrying about a cure.
We need more pushes for inclusitivy within the powerful decision making chairs as Aisha Harris suggests at the NY Times (it's certainly helped on the small screen) and, I'd argue among the various teams at the studios who decide which films to really rally behind for Oscar campaigns.
Reader Comments (74)
I totally failed to say what I thought was irrelevant. Not your column, Nathaniel, but comments about who is what race as the terminology is different in the USA than other places. I apologize for adding the the confusion and any offense.
"What outraged me is that the Academy HAD the chance to nominate two more Best Pictures but according to the new rules didn't or couldn't. The final two slots would have undoubtedly gone to Carol, Straight Outta Compton or Star wars the force awakens."
It's not like they saw the results and then had an Academy conference and decided to cut off the last two nominees. My understanding of how the rule works is that a movie has to both be in the top ten vote getters and get past a certain threshold of votes in order to make it. The rule was put in place after the debacle that was The Blind Side becoming a Best Picture nominee, presumably because it was in tenth place despite not really having that many votes overall. In other words, once the ballots were submitted it was strictly a matter of math how many best picture nominees there would be, no one went in and chose to cut off nominees.
First off I'm not white and even if I were, my opinion (and these facts) would be the same.
The Academy has nominated these films for Best Picture in the past ten years:
Selma
12 Years A Slave
Dallas Buyers Club
Captain Phillips
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Django Unchained
The Help
Precious
The Blind Side
Slumdog Millionaire
Milk
Letters From Iwo Jima
Babel
Crash
Brokeback Mountain
Some of these are actual Best Picture winners, many actors of diverse ethnicities are nominees/ winners. You know why? Because these movies are great. Those performances are great. I don't think people in the Academy nominate films to support a community. They like what they like and I like that about them. We cannot take the last two years as the defining example for their "lack of diversity". Do we have such short memories?
There are many actors in that tweet that gave good performances this year, but were they great? Not for me. Would I nominate Idris Elba? No. I don't think he was better than those five nominees. I'd nominate Jacob Tremblay and Jason Mitchell over him or over Sylvester Stallone, not because I like that white actor and that black actor more but because I love those "performances" more.
I did not like Creed much, because I felt it was something I had seen before. I wouldn't like a movie more just because it has people of color doing the same thing.
Aren't these awards called Best "Actor"? Best "Picture"?
Why do we have to drag gender, color and sexuality into films all the time? I connect with a film like Inside Out not because I'm a little girl. I connect with The Artist not because I'm an actor. I connect with Brokeback Mountain more than Carol not because I like gays more than lesbians. I don't love Room and Star Wars: The Force Awakens just because they feature women, I love the power of those stories. I don't love Straight Outta Compton because it's a paean for black people, I love it because I love rap music and the surprisingly touching story of five friends. I don't love The Revenant because they almost died filming it or because of what it says about masculinity, I love it because of its visceral storytelling and what it says about revenge (an emotion common amongst people of all kinds). Yet, I do love 12 Years A Slave because how beautifully and harrowingly it depicts what it was like to be a slave and a victim of racial discrimination (because the whole film is about that you know). 2015 has had brilliant films about women - box office and critical successes and that's a huge win.
I miss those days when we just loved stories for what they were - stories. The best thing about movies is anyone can connect with anything in them regardless or race or gender. This whole debate takes my mind away from the joy of watching movies. Yes, in the real world there is discrimination on the basis of color, gender and sexuality and there are films that highlight them and tell great stories about them. But sometimes they don't, you know. And that's okay. This won't mean the world has started ignoring them. They are movies. Let them be about storytelling first.
P.S. I'm sorry if I hurt anyone's sentiments unknowingly, just wanted to vent out my frustration over something that makes me sad.
Oh god how I fucking hate that stupid tweet saying that all the actresses look the same! Bitch you did not just say that!
And hell that person who tweeted that there's a lot of viable POC "contenders" this year, girl you do not understand the Oscars.
This is the most reasonable piece written on the issue I've seen. That whole 20 possible nominees chart you included may be well meaning but it's just so unrealistic. Boyega for Star Wars? Ghost chick from Revenant? Way to play fast and loose with the word 'eligible' there, eligible? maybe - but not realistic at all. Stuff like that just brings this to the level of joke and that first tweet you shared - why do people blame the actors and are so mean to them? It's not their fault the Academy nominated them.
"I don't think people in the Academy nominate films to support a community. They like what they like and I like that about them."
But there are members like Ernest Borgnine and Tony Curtis, expressly rejecting a film due to its subject matter. Not to mention Academy members who felt it was their moral and historical obligation to support 12 Years a Slave—whether or not they had liked it or actually seen it.
I get that the Oscars are supposed to honor the best, but does it really do that thoughtfully? In the last few years they nominate mundane things like Christian Bale in The Big Short, Eddie Redmayne in The Danish Girl and Bryan Cranston in Trumbo. Trumbo is so blandly made that it will probably be quickly forgotten years from now. Films about people of color have to be truly great or somehow exceptional (box office or zeitgeist) to be in contention. So I don't really buy the argument that the films about people of color just weren't good enough this year when the Academy eagerly nominates indifferently-made, milquetoast films featuring Caucasian actors.
Raul -- you are absolutely correct. But can't we want them to be better in general... rather than just extend their laziness to more black actors? I liked Will Smith in Concussion for example. But a nomination for him would have been just as lazy as the nomination for Eddie Redmayne (famous, familiar to Oscar voters, real life character, not very good movie but looked good for Oscar on paper -- you're in!!!)
Nathaniel-I agree, but I find those who dismiss the #oscarssowhite complaints by saying that films by or starring people of color as not good enough as being unfair. It proves the point that Oscar voters will sooner nominate a bland film or performance by a white actor rather than consider a person of color. I think of Selma last year. While Paramount screwed the campaign, I find it odd that Oscar voters last year that they were going to ignore a biopic when they have embraced every boring biopic before. I would love for all Oscar nominated films to be exceptional but they seem to be holding films about people of color to a higher standard.
Nathaniel - Which just goes to show how embedded the issues really are. How come Will Smith can't get that 'lazy' nomination and Redmayne can? Will Smith, and any other actor who isn't white for that matter, can't afford to be lazy and have to be brilliant and their performance has to achieve some sort of consensus that pleases the mainstream press and their mostly white crews, peers, and bosses. Then, maaaaaybe they can get nominated, while white actors can afford to be 'lazy' and still get widespread recognition for their work.
Flickah -- i dunno. I think Will Smith is in a special class of superstars (there are very few of them) wherein age, race, and gender -- the things that are often used to divide and judge and marginalize or uplift people -- don't really apply because the person is in another species altogether: THE MOVIE STAR. (people like Tom Hanks, Meryl Streep, Denzel).
My guess is that race has literally 0% to do with Will Smith not being nominated for Concussion. The problem there was the movie wasn't very good. Yes, you can also argue that Danish Girl wasn't a good movie but Danish Girl had the advantage of stronger critical response (71/63 on rotten tomatoes), a hotter media interest topic, and an actress causing a lot of fuss in the media (Vikander) . Concussion had a potentially great weapon for attention in Gugu MBatha Raw but barely knew what to do with her, even shooting her key scene so that her face is barely showing and we're just looking at Will the whole time. Agony if you love Gugu for a whole film to treat her like she's expendable to the film even though she's the lead's wife!
You explored the misguided reactions of those not knowledgable about the industry/Oscar race (some of it veering very close to whitesplaining) but ignored the central point of the outrage, which Bette Streep highlighted:
<<the two films with 'black' themes that received nominations ie. Compton and Creed - only rewarded WHITE people. The white screenwriters and rightwing conservative Republican - Sylvester Stallone.>>
As Straight Outta Compton’s exec producer Will Packer wrote on Facebook: “It’s a complete embarrassment to say that the heights of cinematic achievement have only been reached by white people.” In 20-freaking-16. It is going to take much more than cosmetic changes to the Academy’s membership to challenge how it marginalizes Black filmmakers even when, in the case of both SOC and Creed, they hit all the right notes (timely and engaging story, excellent performances and direction, great box office). Hollywood still prefers to view/treat Black people like “symbols,” Black-helmed/crafted films as “special projects,” and Black audiences as a “niche,” while prioritizing and celebrating the work of whites, even the mediocre ones (the underwhelming Bale, Lawrence, Redmayne, Ruffalo, McAdams, and Cranston). A quota system already exists -- isn't white privilege wonderful?
newmoonson -- i hate the term whitesplaining or mansplaining... possibly because i'm both white and a man (can't help it. was born that way) i understand these terms come because people are angry because they feel their own opinions are devalued and marginalized so it's a way to push back. But whoever is doing the marginalizing, marginalizing is diistasteful and dehumanizing and mean spirited and not the way to move forward as a society.
only open discussion is..
I absolutely agree that CREED was mistreated. I don't feel that way about COMPTON partially because i never think having "great box office" should be a part of the discussions of what constitutes "best". It's silly to me that THE MARTIAN got to be in the conversation for the same reason. Both are solid enteraining movies but "one of the 5 best"? come on now!
as for the thing about the white screenwriters -- i remain absolutely horrified that people think that people vote on craft categories based on the color of people's skins behind the camera.. MOST PEOPLE HAVE NO IDEA IF PEOPLE BEHIND THE SCENES ARE WHITE BLACK ASIAN HISPANIC OR WHATEVER. They vote on how they responded to what's on the screen. Do people honestly think that people held ballots in their hand and thought "ooh i loved those white guys that wrote Straight Outta Compton". No, they thought "ooh, i loved Straight Outta Compton - i'm voting for it!."
now their votes are suddenly viewed as racist votes which is depressing and unfair and absolutely not the right way to promote diversity and open discussion and dialogue about how to make Hollywood a more balanced place.
I wonder why KL is so obsessed with identifying multiracial people (Ben Kingsley, Merle Oberon and the Tillys) and white people of Asian descent (Yul Brynner and Hailee Steinfeld) as Asian.
As for the subject matter, I do find the Idris Elba snub at least somewhat telling after he'd gotten attention from SAG, Bafta, Globes and critics.
Paul - I believe there are people who don't want to watch movies due to their subject matter, you know like.. everywhere! The guy who watches Transformers may not want to watch Brooklyn because the subject matter is boring. He's wrong to reject a good film but it's his choice. Do we stop him from going to the theater or having an opinion? It's impossible to make everyone watch everything and like what is supposed to be liked. It's an awards body, which consists of a group of people. People, with all their flaws.
Americans ideas on race,ethnicity and color are so confusing, poorly defined, unscientific, broad and borderline stupid that makes this discussion barely productive at all. And I say that as a brazilian with Anne hathaway/winona ryder coloring.
What do you even mean by white?
A) only wasps, people from anglo, saxan, nordic and scandinavian ancestry. If thats the case, then exclude southern french people, portuguese, spaniards, italians, greeks, serbians, croatians, armenians, albanians, ucranians, romanians, bosnians, etc. ok. That would be a valid definition.if that as the case, you would consider the already mentioned pacino, de niro non-white, as well as stallone, ruffalo, brando, loren, cardinale, gandolfini, sinatra, benigni, sebastian stan, tony shaloub, mila kunis and all the countless jews in the industry non-White.
B) anyone not born in central/nothern europe is authomatically non-White. Fine. So Ricardo darin is not white, eventhough robert downey Junior, colin farrel, pacino and de niro are all Darker than he is. (Australia would be the exception, obviously).
If that was the case, people of full italian, german or jewish ancestry would be considered white if born in the US, but non-white if born in Argentina or Brasil. Even if their ancestry were identical, one would be white and the other not, because of Place of birth. Which would be a cultural definition more than a biological one.
as it is, the whole Thing is confusing. Alexis Bledel is half mexican half argentinian, spanish is her first language and she only learned english when she entered school. But she is white and América Ferreira Isnt. What about Cameron Diaz? Blue eyed blond, cuban father, spanish lady name.
The same way Benício Del Toro and Oscar Isaac or Andy garcia could easily pass for french, italian, bulgarian, portuguese, serbian, greek, hungarian, romanian, etc, people like Caterine zeta jones, george clooney, colin farrel, sean connerry, robert downey jr, clive owen, Victoria Beckham could easily pass for southern european/mediterraneans.
But some of these concepts used by americans and the american mainstream media should be more refined, specified and clear-because it is a social construct, therefore it should be more clearly bordered and defined-since as it is, it creates these weird situations because you have this fluid, undefined, unspecified, one site fits all umbrella term that can be manipulated and loosely applied as far as specific situations go.
If white means european, why not spaniards? And greeks, macedonians, armenians - I remember a few articles discussing whether the kardahians are white, even if they have na european father and wasp american mother- albanians, and so on?
Are south americans always non-white, even if they look just as white-or whiter- than some whites? The other day I was watching wagner moura on Jimmy Fallon and their coloring is very very similar, moura's skin maybe even paler and fairertha Fallon's, but moura is considered not-white.
JUST Think it should be clearer What people are talking about.
And yes,the academy appears to be quite ignorant on the issues of cultural and ethnic diversity, multiculturalism, cultural diferences and the history of human migrations and cultural exchange.
I'm late so just a couple of notes ... maybe they're things others have pointed out, but anyway.
Warner Bros seemed to have dropped the ball with Creed, and to a lesser extent Mad Max. They clearly thought Black Mass (!) and In The Heart of the Sea (!!) were going to be awards players and when that didn't pan out they were left scrambling. Both Creed and MMFR got pushed quite late by the studio, with the latter having an advantage because it had a lot of critical and industry support already.
Also, I've heard many people suggest moving members to associate status if they haven't worked for, say, 10 years (something Gregory Peck did way when when, apparently) but I'd tread very, very carefully there. Not only would it be ageist, it could also be counterproductive since women and poc find it harder to get work. You could wind up correcting a bias by disproportionately penalising the very people affected by said bias.
Good article, though; a lot more thoughtful and nuanced than most I've read on this issue.
Nathaniel,
No need to get defensive regarding whitesplaining; I wrote you came close to it.
Also, the blogs/critical analysis I have read from people of color (and a few whites who actually get it) over the past few days have never stated or implied that Academy voters checked off the names of the SOC screenwriters *because* they are white. But it is very ugly that that was the only component of the project that was recognized, reminiscent of the Weinstein’s trio of “Black” films two years ago (Fruitvale Station, Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom, and Lee Daniels’ The Butler) receiving one nomination: Best Original Song for Bono/U2. Racism isn’t always about intent (“Oh, the writers of SOC are white? They got my vote!”), it’s about impact. Along with Creed’s solo nod, you can’t expect people not to notice and feel Black filmmakers/actors are, once again, being shown contempt.
Yavor- Um Beyonce is just as mixed as any other Black person in the US. She's no different, My parents have some mixture and so do 99 percent of Blacks. Both of Beyonce's Maternal grandparents were Black probably mixed but they were Black. It's really offensive to label Beyonce as Mixed, but Solange as Black like they don't have the same parents. Black people come on all shades.
nice post
Looking for more useful information
What is that
Personally, I'm for cultural diversity, because we can't do without it in today's society. I think it's extremely important and you can't do without it. So I can definitely say that everyone should think about learning as much as possible about it without too many problems and difficulties. I can tell you that you should definitely studydriver.com/cultural-diversity-essay/ read here what professional writers on this topic think. I think you will be able to understand a lot for yourself as I did.