2015 Oscars: Zero minority actors, zero female directors

[Civil War Man]

That is a very unfair shake to LBJ. I can see how people would be outraged about that. It turns him from probably the most important force in politics (yes, more important than MLK) for civil rights to an opportunist or somebody who needed a push to do the right thing.

Perhaps it is, but that's not what the outraged people are saying. They are claiming that LBJ is being portrayed as the antagonist, which he is not.

As a side note, the movie didn't portray King as any less of an opportunist. In it, one of the main reasons King picks Selma as the epicenter of the voting rights protests is because he knows that the sheriff is a near uncontrollable thug and that it would be trivial to provoke him into committing an atrocity that would rally the rest of the country to his side. It even implies that he cancelled one protest at the last second when it looked like he wasn't going to get that reaction (there was a sizeable contingent of white clergy that joined in the protest, and the sheriff was on a tight leash after he openly attacked a previous protest in broad daylight in front of the national press).

EDIT: Also wanted to add that even if it showed Johnson as an opportunist, it still showed him as an ally. When he met with King at the beginning, he tried to have King support him in his push for the War on Poverty because he felt that ending poverty would help more.

[RogueIce]

Oh it's not just a matter of edits. It's taking scripts and characters and remaking them with a brand new American cast in an American setting. Usually for the worse. I can't think of a single Americanized British show that I enjoyed more than the original.

Whose Line Is It Anyway was definitely better with Drew Carey than the British guy.

[The Romulan Republic]

George Lucas weighed in:

George Lucas didn't pull any punches Friday on CBS This Morning, ripping the Academy for its all-white actor nominees this year, saying of the Oscar-nomination process, "It's a political campaign. It has nothing to do with artistic endeavor at all."

Lucas was responding to host Gayle King's question about whether he saw the all-white categories as a snub of eligible black actors, like Selma's David Oyelowo.

READ MORE Oscar Snubs: Jennifer Aniston, 'Lego Movie,' 'Selma' Director, More
Lucas elaborated, referring to Academy members, "Why do we elect people who drift toward not the most talented, best, and brightest we have in the country? It's all political. ... I think it hurts everybody."

The Star Wars director, who appeared on the morning show to promote his new animated film Strange Magic, said he's not a member of the Academy specifically because of all the controversy constantly surrounding it.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/g ... s-a-764345

[Havok]

Question: When making a western adaptation of a Japanese movie, why do you need to cast a Japanese actor if it's not set in Japan? I mean... am I missing something here? Is the movie going to be set in Japan? I'm assuming it's going to be set, y'know, in the west.

[Civil War Man]

Question: When making a western adaptation of a Japanese movie, why do you need to cast a Japanese actor if it's not set in Japan? I mean... am I missing something here? Is the movie going to be set in Japan? I'm assuming it's going to be set, y'know, in the west.

They don't necessarily need to, but unless the movie is taking place in an historical context that makes a certain casting choice impossible, it wouldn't hurt to cast a non-white and/or female actor in the lead, if only because there are generally fewer opportunities for actors who are not white men. For example, if you are a black woman in a movie, you are typically either the female lead's sassy friend, being directed by Tyler Perry, or your name is Halle Berry. And if you are any kind of American Indian, I hope you like feathers and face paint, because there will be very few roles for you outside of westerns (and even then, there might still be a white person cast in your place if they are sufficiently tan or willing to do redface).

[Elheru Aran]

I watched Selma a few weeks ago. It was... okay. Honestly it seemed a little contrived to me, like they were trying a little too hard to make the historical narrative fit their story. I've seen better civil-rights stories done on film, such as Mississippi Burning.

Hollywood is getting a little better with casting minorities... but not by much. Tyler Perry's role in Gone Girl, for example, could just as well have been played by a white actor because his race was never once mentioned IIRC (having not read the novel, I don't know if the lawyer was depicted as black there).

There is still a pretty strong racial divide in film, more so than in many other parts of American life. The majority of Hollywood movies are pretty lily-white; if minorities appear, they're a supporting role. When a minority actor is in a leading role... either they're very famous (Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, etc), or 90% of the supporting cast is also a minority and the movie's probably directed by a minority as well (Tyler Perry films, 'Think Like a Man', and so on).

Example: That pile of shit "What to Expect when You're Expecting" movie. It's set in Atlanta, which is only about thirty miles north of my town. There are a total of two (IIRC, it's been a while) minority characters-- Jennifer Lopez (Hispanic but could pass for white) and Chris Rock. Real life: At my work, on my team, I'm one of three white people out of about twelve. Everybody else is black. See the bullshit there?

[bilateralrope]

Question: When making a western adaptation of a Japanese movie, why do you need to cast a Japanese actor if it's not set in Japan? I mean... am I missing something here? Is the movie going to be set in Japan? I'm assuming it's going to be set, y'know, in the west.

When Hollywood is casting a white actress for a Japanese character for a series set in Japan, like they are doing with Ghost in the Shell*, I think you have the wrong question.

*Unless there are other changes I haven't heard about. Changes that will really piss off the fans of the original Ghost in the Shell. Though if they are changing it to being set in the US, I'd like to see a reason that isn't stupidity or a hatred of foreign cultures.

[Simon_Jester]

Hollywood is getting a little better with casting minorities... but not by much. Tyler Perry's role in Gone Girl, for example, could just as well have been played by a white actor because his race was never once mentioned IIRC (having not read the novel, I don't know if the lawyer was depicted as black there).

He was explicitly depicted as white in the novel, or rather described in such a way as to leave no possible doubt as far as I can remember that he was (i.e., he has a spray-on tan).

However, there's nothing about the character that requires a particular racial background.

[Incidentally, Tanner's wife in the novel is black, and she was the one throwing the gummy bears in the novel]

So, a race-neutral role cast as black. Good, now let's do it more often...

[Gaidin]

Question: When making a western adaptation of a Japanese movie, why do you need to cast a Japanese actor if it's not set in Japan? I mean... am I missing something here? Is the movie going to be set in Japan? I'm assuming it's going to be set, y'know, in the west.

Why not? I mean, sure, you don't have to but it's not like they don't live in the west either.

[GuppyShark]

When Hollywood is casting a white actress for a Japanese character for a series set in Japan, like they are doing with Ghost in the Shell*, I think you have the wrong question.

*Unless there are other changes I haven't heard about. Changes that will really piss off the fans of the original Ghost in the Shell. Though if they are changing it to being set in the US, I'd like to see a reason that isn't stupidity or a hatred of foreign cultures.

A Hollywood Ghost in the Shell remake is unlikely to be targetted at fans of the original. It doesn't have to be stupidity or malice, the market of 'otaku old enough to remember GitS and still care about it' is probably not a very large one.

The usual Hollywood formula for remakes of foreign films is to take the plot and set it in New York.

[Elheru Aran]

Ghost in the Shell *does* take place in Japan (a future version thereof, anyway). So unless they're adapting it extremely to alter its location to either a fictitious country or a Western country, it doesn't really make sense to depict a Japanocentric story with Western actors. It's as silly as casting Keanu Reeves in that shitty 47 Ronin film, which they did more or less to purely give it some star-power.

Granted Scarlett Johansson could be thought, with the help of some careful makeup, to be at least partially Asian; but at a certain level that's simply another version of yellowface. It's worse than, say, using black Idris Elba to depict the traditionally Nordic (and very far from black) Heimdall, because that's a *fantasy* character from another world entirely, of which there have been several versions portrayed anyway. Race is simply not really a consideration for Heimdall unless you want to invoke the mythological background of the character.

Motoko Kusanagi, on the other hand, has been fairly consistently portrayed as Asiatic/Japanese, and the manga, films and television series that she has been in have been supposed to be set in the 'real world' in the future.

I suppose the question it comes down to is: Does the race of a character have a relevant bearing upon the story that they are part of?

As for 'otaku old enough to remember GITS'-- it only came out in 1995. That's twenty years ago, sure, but there's plenty of older 20- and 30-somethings around who will have watched either it or the television series based upon it (Stand Alone Complex, for one). It's a popular enough franchise, especially in Japan (don't forget that the international market is starting to become vital for a film's overall success these days), that changing it significantly would be disastrous.

[Havok]

Wait, so you are saying that the story of Ghost in the Shell is so ingrained into Japan that they can't do an adaptation in say futuristic New York? That to take it out of Japan will make the story make no sense? Come on. I mean the fucking story isn't even set in a real Japan city.

[General Zod]

When Hollywood is casting a white actress for a Japanese character for a series set in Japan, like they are doing with Ghost in the Shell*, I think you have the wrong question.

*Unless there are other changes I haven't heard about. Changes that will really piss off the fans of the original Ghost in the Shell. Though if they are changing it to being set in the US, I'd like to see a reason that isn't stupidity or a hatred of foreign cultures.

A Hollywood Ghost in the Shell remake is unlikely to be targetted at fans of the original. It doesn't have to be stupidity or malice, the market of 'otaku old enough to remember GitS and still care about it' is probably not a very large one.

The usual Hollywood formula for remakes of foreign films is to take the plot and set it in New York.

Americanize all the characters and it's just another futuristic hacker movie that only capitalized the name for instant name recognition and nothing else.

[Havok]

And if you make it an all Japanese cast and everyone speaks Japanese and it is set in Japan, then it really isn't an adaptation is it?
If you dill holes are mad because you only want a live action remake, just say so, but don't bag on movie studios for taking a cool story and making it more accessible to the target audience, which *SHOCK* isn't Japanese.

[bilateralrope]

Wait, so you are saying that the story of Ghost in the Shell is so ingrained into Japan that they can't do an adaptation in say futuristic New York? That to take it out of Japan will make the story make no sense? Come on. I mean the fucking story isn't even set in a real Japan city.

If that is what they are doing, then I'd have less issue with it. The problem is that I have seen nothing to suggest that they are doing that. Everything I've seen says that it's still set in Japan. The characters still have their original names. This article says they are working for the Japanese National Public Safety Commission.

On that matter, how does changing the country it is set in or the ethnicity of characters help with accessibility ?

There probably will be some changes because of the differences between how Japanese refer to each other and how it's usually done in english speaking countries. Those changes to small details do help accessibility.

[AniThyng]

Question: When making a western adaptation of a Japanese movie, why do you need to cast a Japanese actor if it's not set in Japan? I mean... am I missing something here? Is the movie going to be set in Japan? I'm assuming it's going to be set, y'know, in the west.

I suppose you could cast an Asian-American, because I'm guessing the people complaining the loudest are not in fact actual Japanese living in Japan, but those living in the west. If the Japanese content owners were inclined to make a fuss over it I don't think they would have transferred the rights to begin with.

I've read the manga, novel and movie for Edge of Tomorrow / All You Need is Kill and I actually have to say that the bigger problem with keeping everything really faithful to the source material is that there is always a sense of Japanese exceptional-ism and liberal appliation of stereotypes for foreign characters to many Manga/Anime, even those with multi-national casts like AYNiK (or say, Macross) that would be jarring to a non-Japanese audience if kept as is. Vita being basically an action girl borderline loli character in the manga would probably be realllly uncomfortable for non-otaku too.

It's been eons since I watched GiTS so I can;t recall if these aspects (e.g. uniquely Japanese sensibilities) applies to it as well. In any case, I just want Tachikomas

Who's going to be Batou?

[Flagg]

Who gives a fuck? The Academy Awards are the film industries annual masturbation fests and anyone who gives them credence is a moron.

[Havok]

Wait, so you are saying that the story of Ghost in the Shell is so ingrained into Japan that they can't do an adaptation in say futuristic New York? That to take it out of Japan will make the story make no sense? Come on. I mean the fucking story isn't even set in a real Japan city.

If that is what they are doing, then I'd have less issue with it. The problem is that I have seen nothing to suggest that they are doing that. Everything I've seen says that it's still set in Japan. The characters still have their original names. This article says they are working for the Japanese National Public Safety Commission.

No, that story says

The story follows the exploits of a member of a covert ops unit of the Japanese National Public Safety Commission that specializes in fighting technology-related crime.

That is about as basic of a synopsis as you can get about the story. I mean, what else is the writer of the article going to say knowing absolutely nothing about the production yet? The article says ZERO about whether there will be changes, however, in casting Johansson, I'm pretty sure Spielberg isn't going to try to pass her off as Japanese, so I'm sure the relevant corresponding changes will happen.

[salm]

Who gives a fuck? The Academy Awards are the film industries annual masturbation fests and anyone who gives them credence is a moron.

Amen.

[Adam Reynolds]

Taking this to a more general level: this has been a truly underwhelming year in movies so far.
TV Miniseries and series were far better this year than the movies.

Have you seen either Edge of Tomorrow or Guardians of the Galaxy? Those were both fairly good as popcorn movies.

The biggest thing that bothers me lately is the fact that hardly any decent thrillers come out any more, except on television.

Lone Surivor - the best action movie of the year

I haven't seen it myself but you didn't think it glorified the American way of war somewhat? That was the impression I got from critics(who I know are generally shit).

Captain America: The Winter Soldier - bland and boring

It's funny, Marvel made a classical cheesy Sean Connery/Roger More era James Bond movie without really intending to. For all the talk about how it was a modern thriller, the plot was an exact duplicate of classic Bond.

Who gives a fuck? The Academy Awards are the film industries annual masturbation fests and anyone who gives them credence is a moron.

The problem is that it seems to get worse with time. Oscar winning movies were generally among the best movies of the year going further back. Now they seem biased towards movies that are considered "serious." This is my favorite take on the issue:

Sadly it actually happened. Whatever you think of her performance, it is amusing.

[Thanas]

Have you seen either Edge of Tomorrow or Guardians of the Galaxy? Those were both fairly good as popcorn movies.

I haven't but will look into them. Thanks for the recommendation.

Lone Surivor - the best action movie of the year

I haven't seen it myself but you didn't think it glorified the American way of war somewhat? That was the impression I got from critics(who I know are generally shit).

I didn't see it that way and didn't get that impression. If anything, it glorified the right way to wage war - like not wanting to execute children even though it would be expedient to do so.

I mean, sure, you can see it that way if you really want to, but it takes a lot of interpretation. For example, (SPOILERS FOLLOWING)
Spoiler

- the movie opens up with a training montage then cuts to a guy wanting to buy his fiancee a horse. This comes up several times in the story again when the protagonists discuss about swinging that and how much it would cost. Now you can interpret that as "USA HEROES NEED MOAR MONEY" or you can take it as average joes trying to make ends meet. To me it was clear it is the latter.
- the movie is a rare example of going against the grain of modern movies showing the heroes breaking the rules of war and killing civilians. The key scene to the entire movie is the protagonists being discovered by three civilians while conducting recon in enemy territory. One of the civilian has a radio that may or may not be tuned to a Taliban frequency. They have a discussion about what to do:
a) kill them
b) tie them up and leave them to certain death
c) let them go despite having a chance to be discovered
Any modern apologist movie would have the guys do the "hard choice" and kill them. It would also vindicate such choice by pointing to the Taliban radio. The protagonists in the movie let them go, the children alert the enemy villagers and the US forces are hunted down and killed.
If one would read that one might get the idea that the movie advocates for killing civilians, because not doing so would result in the death of US forces. But it does not, because:
- a few scenes later the lone survivor of the US forces is chanced upon by another three civilians, again a man with two children. He has his pistol out but doesn't pull the trigger again.
- Turns out these guys are the real heroes of the story, which the movie makes quite clear.
a) They hide the wounded soldier from the Taliban
b) Despite the movie making sure to show them having next to nothing, they immediately offer up one of their last geese for him to eat
c) They and the other village defend him from the Taliban due to the Afghan concept of guest right, which they make quite clear they will die and kill for. They prevent the execution of the american by literally pointing their guns at the taliban.
d) The entire last battle is the villagers defending against the Taliban, the US forces turn up as the proverbial cavalry in the end. But the main battle is borne by the "good afghanis". The epilogue starts by explaining the afghan concept of guest right.

In the depiction, the heroism of the Afghans is at least as good as that of the Americans. The only way you could twist that into glorifying the american way of waging war is by saying that the movie makes a case for the good afghans, which it does, but so what? I'll take that over Eastwood glorifying bona fide war criminals like Chris Kyle any day.

[Adam Reynolds]

I mean, sure, you can see it that way if you really want to, but it takes a lot of interpretation. For example, (SPOILERS FOLLOWING)

That is interesting, I'll have to check it out. It is amusing that the director behind Battleship made a better war movie than Eastwood.

On my two movie recommendations, I should point out that both are hardly intellectual. I remember a thread in which you commented that you weren't much of a fan of The Avengers and Guardians is somewhat similar in its flaws, though Groot is awesome. Edge of Tomorrow is my favorite Tom Cruise movie in the last several years, it was too bad it didn't do better in the box office.

[Ziggy Stardust]

"The Imitation Game" is a well done movie, if you aren't the type to be bothered by the liberties taken with historical fact. It certainly glosses over or adjusts some of the details in the interests of maintaining dramatic tension; it also has a couple of scenes that are rather goofily dumbed down (you could tell the producers wanted to make the movie accessible and avoid esoteric discussions of the math actually involved in ENIGMA, and at times it can be highly amusing to hear dialogue that essentially amounts to, "How did you break the code?" "With the magic of MATHS!"). That said, it is still a really well done film that actually seemed to truly care about telling the story of Turing, especially with his homosexuality.

I definitely think Cumberbatch deserved the nomination for the movie, not sure if he deserves to win (haven't seen most of the other relevant performances). Also not sure it is really "Best Picture" material, though it gets a bit of a boost for tackling homosexuality in a way that doesn't come off as somewhat condescending (like "Milk"; excellent film, mind you, but it always felt like nobody involved with the movie actually cared about gay people, if you understand what I mean. It seemed more exploitative than genuine in my opinion).

[Grumman]

I suppose the question it comes down to is: Does the race of a character have a relevant bearing upon the story that they are part of?

The exact opposite. I mean, it's right there in the title: The Ghost in the Shell. The Major is not her full-body prosthetic, she is the "ghost", the soul, that inhabits it. That her prosthetic looks like Scarlett Johansson and not Rinko Kikuchi is an aesthetic choice at most.

[K. A. Pital]

Specifically in the context of anime, I think it's because the Japanese social milieu contains a lot of features that are not easily understood by Americans, or at least now intuitively so. Making the cast Americans and removing the explicitly Japanese elements that would not be easily recognizable to an American helps the movie sell to Americans.

And Hollywood markets primarily to American audiences; it isn't as well equipped to do so elsewhere. That part I understand- and it's not like Japan doesn't adapt into its pop culture events that happened in other parts of the world too.

But that's not the whole 'racism in casting' issue.

Japan doesn't really adapt its pop culture. It is decidedly Japanese. Depictions of other cultures are at best naive guesses, at worst - caricatures.