Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Movies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-21-2015, 02:23 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,992,576 times
Reputation: 14125

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PJSinger View Post
Hattie McDaniel, a Black woman, won Best Supporting Actress in 1940 for her role in 1939's Gone With The Wind. It was well-deserved. I see no "white privilege" there. 1940 | Oscars.org | Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences

.
There have been a good number of best supporting actress wins and nominations, more so than best actress, even if the best actress is in the same movie like Precious and The Help. I just wish we could see more from African-American actresses. I'd go out of my way to see a film with a strong African-American actress as the lead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-21-2015, 02:37 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
5,287 posts, read 5,813,157 times
Reputation: 4474
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJSinger View Post
Hattie McDaniel, a Black woman, won Best Supporting Actress in 1940 for her role in 1939's Gone With The Wind. It was well-deserved. I see no "white privilege" there. 1940 | Oscars.org | Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
won the
.
Of course, and Sidney Poitier won Best Actor in 1963.

What I'm saying is that the extremely low amount of non-whites winning that coveted award is questionable. Is it really that absurd to suggest that an overwhelmingly white Academy would be predisposed to choose nominees that look like them? And that the only time a nominee of color was able to win is because all of the other performances in that category were remarkably poor?

From 1930 to 1999, 10 black men were nominated for BA and only 1 of them would win.
From 2000 to 2013, 10 black men were nominated for BA and 3 of them have won.

That doesn't strike anyone as odd? Black actors did not suddenly improve overnight in a manner that would warrant the frequency of their nominations and wins to increase so dramatically. In my view, either the Academy is getting less racist or they're simply handing out these awards to these black nominees out of guilt.

Here's something else to consider: The Academy is 93% white and 76% male, with an average of 63.

Many say that people are too quick to play the race card. Well I say that some people are too quick to dismiss racism (or any form of prejudice) as a possibility.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2015, 03:23 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,992,576 times
Reputation: 14125
It could be Hollywood (including the academy) is less racist too...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2015, 04:07 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
5,287 posts, read 5,813,157 times
Reputation: 4474
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
It could be Hollywood (including the academy) is less racist too...
Possibly, but less racism does not mean free of racism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2015, 07:32 PM
 
16,178 posts, read 32,574,331 times
Reputation: 20593
Back on topic of the Original Topic please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2015, 08:07 PM
 
Location: Under the Redwoods
3,751 posts, read 7,696,145 times
Reputation: 6118
Maybe I missed it and it was already stated, but it seems those who have their panties in a bunch over this 'all white' thing has not a clue about how the Academy goes about choosing nominations.
Almost anyone who is in the film industry can become a member of the Academy. Directors, actors, editors, and so on.
The Oscars are basically a 'peer review'.
How could that possibly be racist or 'selective' or 'exclusive' in any way?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2015, 08:25 PM
 
Location: Upstate NY 🇺🇸
36,753 posts, read 14,886,232 times
Reputation: 35590
Quote:
Originally Posted by mega man View Post
Until either of you can effectively establish that Halle Berry was truly the very first black actress that deserved to win after 74 years, the "race card" is applicable, whether you like it or not.

It's not "applicable" just because you say it is, and passage of time isn't the criterion by which Academy Awards are bestowed.

Good grief, stop living in the past.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2015, 10:09 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,992,576 times
Reputation: 14125
Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlKaMyst View Post
Maybe I missed it and it was already stated, but it seems those who have their panties in a bunch over this 'all white' thing has not a clue about how the Academy goes about choosing nominations.
Almost anyone who is in the film industry can become a member of the Academy. Directors, actors, editors, and so on.
The Oscars are basically a 'peer review'.
How could that possibly be racist or 'selective' or 'exclusive' in any way?
Part of it is the support service where people are requested to send out mailers to encourage nominations. People have said that this practice might have hurt Selma with David Oyelowo and Ava DuVernay getting snubbed in best actor and best director respectfully.
Part of it is a point I've made several times is the amount of best picture nominations being up to 10 while every other is up to five. I've also mentioned that this year had a loaded best actor in a leading role class that you had a pool of at least seven actors, if not more that could have easily been nominations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2015, 06:50 AM
 
Location: San Antonio
5,287 posts, read 5,813,157 times
Reputation: 4474
Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlKaMyst View Post
Maybe I missed it and it was already stated, but it seems those who have their panties in a bunch over this 'all white' thing has not a clue about how the Academy goes about choosing nominations.
Almost anyone who is in the film industry can become a member of the Academy. Directors, actors, editors, and so on.
The Oscars are basically a 'peer review'.
How could that possibly be racist or 'selective' or 'exclusive' in any way?
Because the people making the selection could be racist. Duh.

Maybe you missed the part of my post where I pointed out that the Academy board is overwhelmingly composed of older white men.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2015, 05:50 AM
 
Location: So Ca
26,839 posts, read 27,005,584 times
Reputation: 24950
Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlKaMyst View Post
Almost anyone who is in the film industry can become a member of the Academy. Directors, actors, editors, and so on.
Simply being in the film industry is not sufficient for Academy membership.
(Check link under "Branch Requirements.")
Academy Membership | Oscars.org | Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Movies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top