2015 Oscars: Zero minority actors, zero female directors

OT: anything goes!

Moderator: Edi

User avatar
Civil War Man
NERRRRRDS!!!
Posts: 3790
Joined: 2005-01-28 03:54am

2015 Oscars: Zero minority actors, zero female directors

Post by Civil War Man »

And in a year where one of the Best Picture nominees is an MLK biopic.
The Washington Post wrote:The biggest stunner of the Academy Award nominations? Not a single actor of color or female director was included, sparking immediate criticism about Hollywood’s failure to include minorities in its most elite ranks.

The director Ava DuVernay of “Selma,” the critically acclaimed Martin Luther King Jr. biopic, did not receive a nomination. Neither did any black members of the movie’s cast, including David Oyelowo for his role as King. “Selma” entered the Oscars race as a strong contender for multiple awards. “Birdman” and “The Grand Budapest Hotel” tied for the most nominations with nine each.

Critics say such results are no surprise given that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which votes on nominees and winners, is overwhelmingly white. An L.A. Times analysis in 2013 found that the overall academy was 93 percent white and 76 percent male.

The lack of diversity among nominees showed the limits of how far Hollywood will go to support minorities, who don’t often have the connections and get films made or get cast into leading roles.

Hannah Ehrlich, director of marketing for minority book publisher Lee and Low released a study to show the low numbers. She added that even though there is critical acclaim for “Selma” and “12 Years a Slave,” most films made by minority directors and featuring minority actors are limited to certain genres.

“What’s disheartening is that it seemed like things were improving after ’12 Years a Slave’ won last year but now it seems like the Academy is saying, ‘Because we did that, we’re good for a while,” Ehrlich said.

“These topics, slavery and civil rights, are hugely important but in almost any other category of films the casts are all white. Over and over people say that things are getting better but the numbers don’t show improvement and in fact this year we are moving backward,” she said.

The nominations for best leading and supporting actors did not include any minorities.

Best actor nominations went to Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher”; Bradley Cooper, “American Sniper”; Benedict Cumberbatch, “The Imitation Game”; Michael Keaton, “Birdman”; Eddie Redmayne, “The Theory of Everything.”

Cooper was a surprise to some critics because he wasn’t nominated for the Golden Globes.

Best actress nominees include: Marion Cotillard, “Two Days One Night”; Felicity Jones, “The Theory of Everything”; Julianne Moore, “Still Alice”; Rosamund Pike, “Gone Girl”; and Reese Witherspoon, “Wild”.

The glaring lack of diversity immediately drew criticism.

The lack of diversity at the Oscars only underscored problems routinely faced by black directors and casts. In our story last month, we looked into how many recent critical hits — “12 Years a Slave,” “The Butler,” “Dear White People,” and “Top Five” struggled to find financing and distribution.

“Part of the problem is it’s an incredibly insular industry,” said Darnell Hunt, director of the Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies at UCLA. “The people who make decisions, who green-light projects, tend to surround themselves with people pretty much like themselves.”

But for these executives, he added, “it’s becoming harder and harder to bury their heads in the sand and pretend there’s not this demographic earthquake happening. At some point, it’s not going to be sustainable. They’re going to have to start making movies that people of all colors will want to see.”
There's a graphic with some Oscar stats in the article. Not posted here because it turned out really big when I previewed the post.

Anyway, apparently this is the first time in nearly 20 years that every single nominated actor and actress has been white.
User avatar
Lagmonster
Master Control Program
Master Control Program
Posts: 7719
Joined: 2002-07-04 09:53am
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: 2015 Oscars: Zero minority actors, zero female directors

Post by Lagmonster »

One of these days I need to sit down and read about the Academy, and figure out what gives them the clout, power, or whatever that makes whatever they say mean anything to anybody. I mean, if they were a publically funded group, I'd have expectations. But as far as I know, they're just a bunch of old dudes who tell everyone what movies they liked once a year. Like the world's most expensive tweet.

Edit: Just started reading, and the first thing that hit me was that the president of the Academy is a black woman. So, okay?
bilateralrope
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5991
Joined: 2005-06-25 06:50pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: 2015 Oscars: Zero minority actors, zero female directors

Post by bilateralrope »

Anyway, apparently this is the first time in nearly 20 years that every single nominated actor and actress has been white.
The Academy might only be a symptom. The problem might be that the nominations were the best choices because of racism and sexism in the film production.

For an example of racism in casting choices: Ghost in the Shell Casting Shows We Need More Than White Feminism
CARLY SMITH | 9 JANUARY 2015 8:00 AM
Movies and TV - RSS 2.0206

Hollywood has a bad problem with casting women; it has an even worse problem with casting women who aren't white.

Let's get this out of the way: live-action adaptations of anime rarely go well.

But it's not just that stylized animation doesn't always translate well into a medium with human bodies on screen. When western film producers have the chance to offer opportunities to lesser seen actors and minorities, we see the same people again.

Scarlet Johansson has reportedly signed on to DreamWorks' adaptation of Ghost in the Shell, a manga with several animated adaptations. The story focuses on Motoko Kusanagi, unrelenting cyborg taking down cybercrime. The 1995 animated film adaptation of the manga is one of the better known and more celebrated adaptations, and it stands with other Japanese anime of the time like Akira (1988) and Cowboy Bebop (1997) as interesting takes on technology, people, and moral ambiguity.

But why a white woman? When a Hollywood producer or director announces interest in an adaptation of a Japanese anime, the source material is often Americanized. The Akira live-action adaptation, which seems to have fizzled, featured whitewashed characters in a New York-like city. In an early iteration of the project, concept art showed white characters as Kaneda and Tetsuo, renamed Travis, and later when the second director departed the project, white actors such as Robert Pattinson, Andrew Garfield, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Chris Pine, and Keanu Reaves were candidates for the main roles. Because we obviously want someone named Andrew Garfield to play a character named Tetsuo Shima.

This is the same situation with Motoko Kusanagi. While there are plenty of Asian actresses who are just as talented as Scarlett Johansson, the industry overlooks those women. The easy excuse is that hiring those actresses would be financially risky. The industry has already grappled with the belief that only women will see movies where the main characters are woman, yet female-led Frozen is the fifth highest-grossing film in history, while Lucy and Maleficent earned $40 million in their respective opening weekends in the box office. Movies in the past several years have made it obvious that films with female leads are just as financially successful, and yet only 31% of speaking roles in films are female, according to research by the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media. Only 7% of directors are female!
With only 7% of directors being female, it's not hard to imagine a year where none of them direct the best movies.

With racism in casting, especially because studios think minority actors are risky, it's easy to see only white people getting Academy nominations, because only white people got the roles.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: 2015 Oscars: Zero minority actors, zero female directors

Post by Simon_Jester »

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.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Civil War Man
NERRRRRDS!!!
Posts: 3790
Joined: 2005-01-28 03:54am

Re: 2015 Oscars: Zero minority actors, zero female directors

Post by Civil War Man »

bilateralrope wrote:With only 7% of directors being female, it's not hard to imagine a year where none of them direct the best movies.

With racism in casting, especially because studios think minority actors are risky, it's easy to see only white people getting Academy nominations, because only white people got the roles.
That is a major problem, and one that the article I posted (and the graph that's in the link) mention. And it's true that the lack of diversity among actors and directors means that statistically you will get years like this. What I find really interesting, though, is that one of the Best Picture nominees is, as I mentioned in the OP, an MLK biopic (Selma). Yet the director (a black woman) was not nominated, nor were any of the actors (white or black) who were part of the cast. It didn't receive nominations for screenplay, film editing, or any other category beside Best Original Song. Regardless of what you think of Selma (I'm seeing it this weekend, so I don't have an opinion on its quality yet), it is bizarre that it would be considered a potential Best Picture but not have any nominations in any other major categories. It's basically saying that the movie might be one of the best of the year, but the Academy can't name a single thing that stands out about it.

I decided to look up some random Oscar statistics, and apparently the last movie to win Best Picture without getting a director nomination was Argo in 2012. The last one to win without any acting nominations was Slumdog Millionaire in 2008. The last one to win without a screenplay nomination was Titanic in 1997. The last movie to win Best Picture without also winning in at least one of those other categories was Rebecca back in 1940.
User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3114
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Re: 2015 Oscars: Zero minority actors, zero female directors

Post by Ziggy Stardust »

Other than "Selma" (which I have no opinion on yet as I haven't seen it; thought it looked great in the trailers, though), what other movies this year that were directed by minority or women would have been good enough to be nominated anyway?

I am not saying this as a defense of the Academy, mind you (I stopped paying attention to the Oscars years ago because of how crooked and moronic the entire process is, and how little it actually represents movie quality on an equitable level). I am just curious. As bilateralrope said, for a variety of cultural reasons, there are fewer minority/women working at that level in the industry to begin with. Does anybody know any other movies that were eligible for nomination this year that could have, but didn't, get nominated? I am curious whether we can find other examples.

EDIT: On a completely random aside, the article in the OP also mentions "The Butler", and how it "struggled" to get financial and critical acclaim. For what it's worth, I thought that movie was a steaming pile of shit and didn't deserve anything.
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: 2015 Oscars: Zero minority actors, zero female directors

Post by Thanas »

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.

I mean, just recapping the movies of the year:
A Most Violent Year - decent but not great
American Sniper - propaganda shit glorifying war criminals
Fury - a movie that would have worked much better without it's last third and which was sunk by numerous historical inaccuracies
Gone Girl - meh.
Inherent Vice - ditto
Nightcrawler - popcorn movie, not that interesting
Unbroken - a worse version of the bridge on the rive kwai
Lone Surivor - the best action movie of the year
The Monuments Men - boring, ahistorical
Pompeii - ahistorical shit
300: Rise of an Empire - ahistorical, sexist, fascist shit
Captain America: The Winter Soldier - bland and boring
Maleficent: Just decent.
Lucy: A story which would have worked better as a TV series over a longer period of time.
Sin City: A Dame to Kill For: Meh.


The ones I haven't seen yet are The Theory of Everything, Selma, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 and The Imitation game. But I don't think either will blow me away.


My vote for best movie of the last year so far belongs to X-Men: Days of Future Past. The best movie I saw, but it will never win with critics because it is a Sci-Fi movie.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
Crown
NARF
Posts: 10615
Joined: 2002-07-11 11:45am
Location: In Transit ...

Re: 2015 Oscars: Zero minority actors, zero female directors

Post by Crown »

It's impossible to argue the negative of this issue, simply by doing so you'll get labeled as a racist, but fuck it; is it possible that there were no movies worthy* of an Academy Award this year that fulfil all the perquisite 'super racially fair liberal playing ground'?

Selma was nominated for something like 5 Golden Globes (memory is fuzzy here), but only won 1 (Best Song). Maybe it's a case of award shows not being racist, but the movie just wasn't better in other aspects making it deserving of a nomination/award rather than there being a grand racist conspiracy?

I mean the term 'Oscar-bait' exists for a reason within movie critics circles. For example the movie The Imitation Game was labeled that by reviewers early on; it wasn't strictly historically accurate, it was 'sexed up', it had the classic indicators of a movie studio pushing for awards, but it just wasn't that excellent.

In a year where movies are competing against directorial innovation and daring in Birdman (shot and edited to appear as one continuous take) and Boyhood (shot over a 12 year period where we see a person grow up in front of us), making a historical biopic just won't cut it unless you do something revolutionary.



*By the way, I'm not unaware that there have been numerous examples in the Academy Awards showing that merit has little to do with winning in the past (Paltrow for Shakespeare in Love over Blanchett for Elizabeth, Washington winning for Training Day of all things, etc), I'm just of the opinion that this isn't always the case.
Image
Η ζωή, η ζωή εδω τελειώνει!
"Science is one cold-hearted bitch with a 14" strap-on" - Masuka 'Dexter'
"Angela is not the woman you think she is Gabriel, she's done terrible things"
"So have I, and I'm going to do them all to you." - Sylar to Arthur 'Heroes'
User avatar
Terralthra
Requiescat in Pace
Posts: 4741
Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Location: San Francisco, California, United States

Re: 2015 Oscars: Zero minority actors, zero female directors

Post by Terralthra »

Crown, it's not just "no POC-directed movie nominated for best film", there are also zero people of color nominated for best actor, best actress, supporting actor, or supporting actress.

If you want to say "it's not racist, it's just that no people of color were cast in roles that were Oscar-worthy, as either lead or supporting actor/actress", I have news for you regarding privilege.
User avatar
Crown
NARF
Posts: 10615
Joined: 2002-07-11 11:45am
Location: In Transit ...

Re: 2015 Oscars: Zero minority actors, zero female directors

Post by Crown »

Terralthra wrote:Crown, it's not just "no POC-directed movie nominated for best film", there are also zero people of color nominated for best actor, best actress, supporting actor, or supporting actress.

If you want to say "it's not racist, it's just that no people of color were cast in roles that were Oscar-worthy, as either lead or supporting actor/actress", I have news for you regarding privilege.
I'm not arguing against the fact that there isn't enough representation and opportunity for ethnic minorities in the industry, I'm saying that just because for the first time in 20 years there is no ethnic representation in an award show for some categories we should all lose our fucking minds over it.

If we 'believe' that the Academy Awards have integrity (lol), then we can say 'hey, maybe there weren't performances deserving this year' and move on with our lives.

If we 'believe' that the Academy Awards don't have integrity, then we're basically saying 'hey, how dare you not fake liking non-caucasian actors/directors!' which is a level of cynicism even I'm uncomfortable with.

Want to organise a march demanding that more ethnically diverse people be given a shot in the industry (say a Rooney Rule for the arts)? Give me the date and time and I'll be there. Want to cast a grand conspiracy/outrage that for the first time in 2 decades there appears to be a white wash in some categories? Then I step off the crazy train.

EDIT :: PS, although how the fuck did American Propaganda Hero Worship Sniper get a nomination? :lol:
Image
Η ζωή, η ζωή εδω τελειώνει!
"Science is one cold-hearted bitch with a 14" strap-on" - Masuka 'Dexter'
"Angela is not the woman you think she is Gabriel, she's done terrible things"
"So have I, and I'm going to do them all to you." - Sylar to Arthur 'Heroes'
bilateralrope
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5991
Joined: 2005-06-25 06:50pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: 2015 Oscars: Zero minority actors, zero female directors

Post by bilateralrope »

Crown wrote:I'm not arguing against the fact that there isn't enough representation and opportunity for ethnic minorities in the industry, I'm saying that just because for the first time in 20 years there is no ethnic representation in an award show for some categories we should all lose our fucking minds over it.

If we 'believe' that the Academy Awards have integrity (lol), then we can say 'hey, maybe there weren't performances deserving this year' and move on with our lives.
Why do you think there weren't any deserving performances this year ?

If you think the answer is because of discrimination within film production, like I do, then this is a result we should be angry about. We should just take care in making sure we are angry at the cause of the problem.

If you think it's for another reason, I'd like to hear it.
User avatar
Crown
NARF
Posts: 10615
Joined: 2002-07-11 11:45am
Location: In Transit ...

Re: 2015 Oscars: Zero minority actors, zero female directors

Post by Crown »

bilateralrope wrote:
Crown wrote:I'm not arguing against the fact that there isn't enough representation and opportunity for ethnic minorities in the industry, I'm saying that just because for the first time in 20 years there is no ethnic representation in an award show for some categories we should all lose our fucking minds over it.

If we 'believe' that the Academy Awards have integrity (lol), then we can say 'hey, maybe there weren't performances deserving this year' and move on with our lives.
Why do you think there weren't any deserving performances this year ?

If you think the answer is because of discrimination within film production, like I do, then this is a result we should be angry about. We should just take care in making sure we are angry at the cause of the problem.

If you think it's for another reason, I'd like to hear it.
You quoted half my post, did you also read half of it too?
Image
Η ζωή, η ζωή εδω τελειώνει!
"Science is one cold-hearted bitch with a 14" strap-on" - Masuka 'Dexter'
"Angela is not the woman you think she is Gabriel, she's done terrible things"
"So have I, and I'm going to do them all to you." - Sylar to Arthur 'Heroes'
User avatar
Gaidin
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2646
Joined: 2004-06-19 12:27am
Contact:

Re: 2015 Oscars: Zero minority actors, zero female directors

Post by Gaidin »

Crown wrote: EDIT :: PS, although how the fuck did American Propaganda Hero Worship Sniper get a nomination? :lol:
For not having access behind closed doors this may be hard to answer, but I'm gonna shoot for the same reason Zero Dark Thirty did...
JLTucker
BANNED
Posts: 3043
Joined: 2006-02-26 01:58am

Re: 2015 Oscars: Zero minority actors, zero female directors

Post by JLTucker »

Crown wrote: EDIT :: PS, although how the fuck did American Propaganda Hero Worship Sniper get a nomination? :lol:
Clint Eastwood directed it.
User avatar
Joun_Lord
Jedi Master
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2014-09-27 01:40am
Location: West by Golly Virginia

Re: 2015 Oscars: Zero minority actors, zero female directors

Post by Joun_Lord »

Selma seems to be the movie most people are pointing to that should have been nommed when talking about this and while I've not watched it I've not heard good things about it. Like the earlier Butler its supposed to have some pretty bad historical fuck-ups including its portrayal of LBJ (he was supposed to be in the movie against the Civil Rights act, Selma March, and was the films antagonist according to what I've read) and the portrayal and side-lining of civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy (who apparently had barely a bit part in the movie rather then showing the partnership he had with King, including going to the White House to meet with LBJ, apparently because of the biography that he wrote that showed King as a flawed man).

Should have Selma had been entered even if it wasn't deserving? If it wasn't good, just Oscar bait trash as others have put forth, why does it deserve nomination over other Oscar bait trash especially in light of its twisting of history to serve whatever narrative it was trying to put forth?

Though I'm sure there was other minority actors, directors, or whatever they could have nommed and deserved it. There was that Angelina Jolie movie about some dude in a Japanese concentration camp and I've heard the villain, an asian dude, was pretty damn well acted. The Interview was a semi-crappy movie but the guy playing There Can Be Only Un was pretty good, actually made an insane dictator somewhat likable though that movie was probably to low brow to be considered for the vaunted Oscars and probably past it cut-off date.

Worse comes to worse I'm sure there was Tyler Perry movie that could have been nominated. They might not be greats works but they seem to be successful enough (my mom certainly loves them) with a dedicated following. Even if they aren't good enough their creator was supposed to be surprisingly great in Gone Girl (with some reviews I've read saying for once people wanted more Tyler Perry) and I know that movie is not past the cut-off considering its nominated.
User avatar
Civil War Man
NERRRRRDS!!!
Posts: 3790
Joined: 2005-01-28 03:54am

Re: 2015 Oscars: Zero minority actors, zero female directors

Post by Civil War Man »

Joun_Lord wrote:Like the earlier Butler its supposed to have some pretty bad historical fuck-ups including its portrayal of LBJ (he was supposed to be in the movie against the Civil Rights act, Selma March, and was the films antagonist according to what I've read) and the portrayal and side-lining of civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy (who apparently had barely a bit part in the movie rather then showing the partnership he had with King, including going to the White House to meet with LBJ, apparently because of the biography that he wrote that showed King as a flawed man).
I saw it yesterday, and I think the criticism of LBJ's portrayal is pretty overblown. He was portrayed as strong-willed, stubborn, and a shrewd politician (which is an accurate description of him), and his only opposition to King was that he basically wanted King to lay low for a bit while he focused on other issues like Vietnam and poverty. He was shown to be sympathetic, but had other priorities. But then, near the end, when it became obvious that the issue of voting rights would not wait, he started openly supporting King. If I had to point to a single character to serve as the antagonist, I would say it was George Wallace or the sheriff of Selma, but in truth the antagonist wasn't a single villain but a widespread entrenched racism.

As for the movie itself, I thought it was decent, though I had seen better. Should it have gotten nominations in acting or directing categories? Maybe. I haven't seen most of the other movies that are up for awards, though, so I can't say that definitively. I still think the lack of minorities in the acting categories and women in the directing categories is troubling, but more in the sense of it being, as bilateralrope put it, a symptom of a larger problem. The vast majority of directors are white men, and the movies that don't star white men are often considered niche films, which makes it harder for them to get funding. It's not necessarily the Academy actively snubbing women and minorities (though that may also be the case), but that the industry is so dominated by white men that anyone who is not one has to stand head and shoulders above everyone just to be noticed.
User avatar
General Zod
Never Shuts Up
Posts: 29205
Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
Location: The Clearance Rack
Contact:

Re: 2015 Oscars: Zero minority actors, zero female directors

Post by General Zod »

Simon_Jester wrote: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.
And in the process you alienate your existing fanbase.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
User avatar
Mr Bean
Lord of Irony
Posts: 22444
Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am

Re: 2015 Oscars: Zero minority actors, zero female directors

Post by Mr Bean »

Civil War Man wrote:
As for the movie itself, I thought it was decent, though I had seen better. Should it have gotten nominations in acting or directing categories? Maybe. I haven't seen most of the other movies that are up for awards, though, so I can't say that definitively. I still think the lack of minorities in the acting categories and women in the directing categories is troubling, but more in the sense of it being, as bilateralrope put it, a symptom of a larger problem. The vast majority of directors are white men, and the movies that don't star white men are often considered niche films, which makes it harder for them to get funding. It's not necessarily the Academy actively snubbing women and minorities (though that may also be the case), but that the industry is so dominated by white men that anyone who is not one has to stand head and shoulders above everyone just to be noticed.
It's the fact that a Best Picture nominee was not nominated for anything best picture related. Was the Director Best? Was it the Best Writing? Best Actor or Actress? Best Special Effects?

It looks really odd if a picture gets a Best Picture nomination nothing else. More to the point I saw the film... it's not Best Picture, it's not a bad film but it's just competent. There was nothing bad about the directing, nothing bad about the acting or the costumes. It's well made... it's just not a great film.

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
bilateralrope
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5991
Joined: 2005-06-25 06:50pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: 2015 Oscars: Zero minority actors, zero female directors

Post by bilateralrope »

Simon_Jester wrote: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.
You need to consider that it's not just anime that gets edited like that. Lots of British shows have gotten a US version instead of the US networks airing the British version.

I don't think it's simply a case of removing things that aren't easily understood.
AniThyng
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2761
Joined: 2003-09-08 12:47pm
Location: Took an arrow in the knee.
Contact:

Re: 2015 Oscars: Zero minority actors, zero female directors

Post by AniThyng »

bilateralrope wrote:
Simon_Jester wrote: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.
You need to consider that it's not just anime that gets edited like that. Lots of British shows have gotten a US version instead of the US networks airing the British version.

I don't think it's simply a case of removing things that aren't easily understood.
If the edits are to remove the British-isms, doesn't that just reinforce the point?
I do know how to spell
AniThyng is merely the name I gave to what became my favourite Baldur's Gate II mage character :P
User avatar
General Zod
Never Shuts Up
Posts: 29205
Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
Location: The Clearance Rack
Contact:

Re: 2015 Oscars: Zero minority actors, zero female directors

Post by General Zod »

AniThyng wrote:
bilateralrope wrote:
Simon_Jester wrote: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.
You need to consider that it's not just anime that gets edited like that. Lots of British shows have gotten a US version instead of the US networks airing the British version.

I don't think it's simply a case of removing things that aren't easily understood.
If the edits are to remove the British-isms, doesn't that just reinforce the point?
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.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
bilateralrope
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5991
Joined: 2005-06-25 06:50pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: 2015 Oscars: Zero minority actors, zero female directors

Post by bilateralrope »

AniThyng wrote:
bilateralrope wrote:
Simon_Jester wrote: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.
You need to consider that it's not just anime that gets edited like that. Lots of British shows have gotten a US version instead of the US networks airing the British version.

I don't think it's simply a case of removing things that aren't easily understood.
If the edits are to remove the British-isms, doesn't that just reinforce the point?
I don't buy that the US public would have that much trouble with British-isms that the remake is a good idea. Especially when the remakes keep being regarded as worse.

It could be that the networks have somehow become afraid of showing the quirks of another country. They are to afraid of risk to try anything that hasn't already been shown to work. So they remake foreign shows because they know how a remake will do, but they don't know how airing it unaltered will go. They go with white actors, because the white actors have a predictable effect on ticket sales, but the minority actors do not.

Probably with a large amount of just accepting the common industry wisdom without question. No effort made to check it, possibly even ignoring anything that contradicts it.
Darmalus
Jedi Master
Posts: 1131
Joined: 2007-06-16 09:28am
Location: Mountain View, California

Re: 2015 Oscars: Zero minority actors, zero female directors

Post by Darmalus »

bilateralrope wrote:I don't buy that the US public would have that much trouble with British-isms that the remake is a good idea. Especially when the remakes keep being regarded as worse.

It could be that the networks have somehow become afraid of showing the quirks of another country. They are to afraid of risk to try anything that hasn't already been shown to work. So they remake foreign shows because they know how a remake will do, but they don't know how airing it unaltered will go. They go with white actors, because the white actors have a predictable effect on ticket sales, but the minority actors do not.

Probably with a large amount of just accepting the common industry wisdom without question. No effort made to check it, possibly even ignoring anything that contradicts it.
My personal experience has been that a domestic (US) show will generally get the same reaction from me consistently, episode to episode. I might like the show, hate it, or just be bored, but it will be the same each time.

With foreign shows (not just British) my enjoyment is very often all over the map episode to episode, and sometimes within a single episode. One of the reasons I stopped watching Doctor Who is I felt like I had a 50/50 chance of having my time wasted, and decided I'd rather have something more reliably entertaining to watch. Very likely it was trying to hit buttons to get a reaction that I, as an American, just didn't have.

I'd guess this would be why the shows tend to be remade, fear of an unreliable product.
User avatar
Civil War Man
NERRRRRDS!!!
Posts: 3790
Joined: 2005-01-28 03:54am

Re: 2015 Oscars: Zero minority actors, zero female directors

Post by Civil War Man »

Mr Bean wrote:It's the fact that a Best Picture nominee was not nominated for anything best picture related. Was the Director Best? Was it the Best Writing? Best Actor or Actress? Best Special Effects?
This is what I found strange with the nomination, as well. As I mentioned in a previous post, the lack of any other major nominations is basically saying "this is potentially the best movie of the year, but we have no idea why." I can see why there might be some trouble naming someone for an acting award, since personally I thought the strongest performances were by people who played relatively minor roles in the story, like Oprah and Henry Sanders (who played the grandfather of the guy who was murdered by the police). Still, the decision to nominate the movie for Best Picture and nothing else (besides Best Original Song) comes across as either the Academy snubbing people involved in the movie or cynically giving Selma a token nomination because of the subject matter to try to avoid accusations of racism, which doesn't reflect well on them either way.
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: 2015 Oscars: Zero minority actors, zero female directors

Post by Thanas »

Civil War Man wrote:I saw it yesterday, and I think the criticism of LBJ's portrayal is pretty overblown. He was portrayed as strong-willed, stubborn, and a shrewd politician (which is an accurate description of him), and his only opposition to King was that he basically wanted King to lay low for a bit while he focused on other issues like Vietnam and poverty. He was shown to be sympathetic, but had other priorities. But then, near the end, when it became obvious that the issue of voting rights would not wait, he started openly supporting King. If I had to point to a single character to serve as the antagonist, I would say it was George Wallace or the sheriff of Selma, but in truth the antagonist wasn't a single villain but a widespread entrenched racism.
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.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
Post Reply