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.
It's one thing to say that in a given year, there weren't any black people who made the short list for Best Actor or Actress or Supporting. But to say that no black person involved in filmmaking contributed anything worthy of a nomination in any category is hard to believe.
I've seen the Academy praise forgettable and undeserving productions, as well as ignore productions that everyone, including scholars and the National Film Registry, consider timeless classics. I don't trust the Academy, and I don't buy the argument that it was somehow "a bad year" for black people in film.
It's too bad that the Oscars are still considered a gold standard of quality filmmaking, when their voting record has shown that it's more complicated than that. I want people in the industry to win awards based on merit and not identity, but this looks like extreme oversight.
The Academy is a big trade club that annually pats its own members on the back. Members vote for all kinds of personal and individual criteria, only one of which is "I liked that one most." There is no objective standard of merit involved at all...and never has been, certainly not for the less technical categories. It's always been for each member, "I liked that one."
It's one thing to say that in a given year, there weren't any black people who made the short list for Best Actor or Actress or Supporting. But to say that no black person involved in filmmaking contributed anything worthy of a nomination in any category is hard to believe.
I've seen the Academy praise forgettable and undeserving productions, as well as ignore productions that everyone, including scholars and the National Film Registry, consider timeless classics. I don't trust the Academy, and I don't buy the argument that it was somehow "a bad year" for black people in film.
It's too bad that the Oscars are still considered a gold standard of quality filmmaking, when their voting record has shown that it's more complicated than that. I want people in the industry to win awards based on merit and not identity, but this looks like extreme oversight.
This is exactly the problem. I don't however think that we will see enough from changing the criteria alone. I think we'll need to see the majority of the categories expanded. Not that it is a bad thing but I feel that we don't gain enough from only five and often see best actors moved down into best supporting categories just because they could win that category over the one they could be. No matter if it is eight to ten or five, you have two to three that are on the shortlist to win. Just look at this year's best picture, it's The Revenant, Spotlight and The Big Short for the possible winners.
I do think the problem is bigger than just the awards, however it's not like we didn't see great black acting or directing last year. Not all of it is merely Kevin Hart acting or Tyler Perry writing.
The Academy is a big trade club that annually pats its own members on the back. Members vote for all kinds of personal and individual criteria, only one of which is "I liked that one most." There is no objective standard of merit involved at all...and never has been, certainly not for the less technical categories. It's always been for each member, "I liked that one."
And that's how the Oscars should be recognized. But instead, an Academy award (and even a nomination) is typically a gateway to the A-list and multi-million dollar salaries. Another awards committee should have the same power-- not simply for the race debate, but for the great movies over the years that the Oscars choose to not acknowledge.
And that's how the Oscars should be recognized. But instead, an Academy award (and even a nomination) is typically a gateway to the A-list and multi-million dollar salaries. Another awards committee should have the same power-- not simply for the race debate, but for the great movies over the years that the Oscars choose to not acknowledge.
Samuel L Jackson never won an Oscar. For that matter, neither has Brad Pitt. Again, it's not at the Academy Awards that the problem lies, but in the process leading to nomination. Casting, union control of behind-the-camera hiring, studio promotion to Academy members, et cetera.
That's like complaining that the military has too few black generals without looking to see if they have enough black second lieutenants up front and if they're getting the mentoring of future generals through the process.
Samuel L Jackson never won an Oscar. For that matter, neither has Brad Pitt. Again, it's not at the Academy Awards that the problem lies, but in the process leading to nomination. Casting, union control of behind-the-camera hiring, studio promotion to Academy members, et cetera.
That's like complaining that the military has too few black generals without looking to see if they have enough black second lieutenants up front and if they're getting the mentoring of future generals through the process.
With all the great dramatic roles Samuel L. Jacobson has played, I find it hard to believe he only had one Oscar nomination to his name for his work in Pulp Fiction for it not to be at the least systematic racism in the Academy.
With all the great dramatic roles Samuel L. Jacobson has played, I find it hard to believe he only had one Oscar nomination to his name for his work in Pulp Fiction for it not to be at the least systematic racism in the Academy.
It's not hard for me to guess. Although I've been frequently entertained by Samuel L. Jackson, I've never been emotionally moved by anything he's done. I've never said, "Dang, he acted his butt off in that one."
Now Laurence Fishburne is another story. Fishburne's been robbed.
Samuel L Jackson never won an Oscar. For that matter, neither has Brad Pitt. Again, it's not at the Academy Awards that the problem lies, but in the process leading to nomination. Casting, union control of behind-the-camera hiring, studio promotion to Academy members, et cetera.
That's like complaining that the military has too few black generals without looking to see if they have enough black second lieutenants up front and if they're getting the mentoring of future generals through the process.
What I'm trying to say is, the Academy's endorsements have too much authority in show business. And maybe they shouldn't have that much authority over the success of productions, filmmakers and actors. A Golden Globe or BAFTA nomination or win doesn't lead to top-billing and top salaries, if the Oscars don't agree. Pitt and Jackson don't have awards, but they have nominations.
The question to ask is, how many of the highest-paid actors don't even have an Oscar nomination? Looking at Wikipedia, I only see Schwarzenegger, and Keanu Reeves (and that was only for the lead role in the massively-anticipated Matrix sequels).
What I'm trying to say is, the Academy's endorsements have too much authority in show business. And maybe they shouldn't have that much authority over the success of productions, filmmakers and actors. A Golden Globe or BAFTA nomination or win doesn't lead to top-billing and top salaries, if the Oscars don't agree. Pitt and Jackson don't have awards, but they have nominations.
The question to ask is, how many of the highest-paid actors don't even have an Oscar nomination? Looking at Wikipedia, I only see Schwarzenegger, and Keanu Reeves (and that was only for the lead role in the massively-anticipated Matrix sequels).
An Academy award may get an actor up to "highest paid" category, but an actor will normally become quite highly paid and quite well-known on his or her own acumen significantly before his first Oscar nomination.
And that's ignoring the technical awards. What does it take to be hired as editor for Star Wars...guaranteed at least consideration for nomination just 'cause: Star Wars.
An Academy award may get an actor up to "highest paid" category, but an actor will normally become quite highly paid and quite well-known on his or her own acumen significantly before his first Oscar nomination.
And that's ignoring the technical awards. What does it take to be hired as editor for Star Wars...guaranteed at least consideration for nomination just 'cause: Star Wars.
From what I've seen over the years, if an actor hasn't been recognized in an Oscar-winning production, they're expendable and easily replaced by newcomers. I've seen a lot of actors and especially actresses over the years who I think gave great performances, then are rarely if ever seen again in a MPAA-rated theatrical release.
And from what I've seen in the technical industry, it's a congested and massively competitive field, but once a cinematographer or special effects artist works on a movie that receives Oscar nominations and awards, they can write their own checks for future projects, and their job is secure. I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but from what I've read over the years, the Oscar is the "holy grail" in show business that everyone in the industry is clawing for. What I'm not sure about is why can't another awards committee command that same kind of authority. At the end of the day, the Academy is just one opinion, and as you said before, it's a club that congratulates themselves.
The Globes is another close to THE Academy but it is still a mile away from it.
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.
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.
