• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Hollywood/Academy Awards Racist?

Is Hollywood/Academy Awards Racist?


  • Total voters
    34
Michael B. Jordan for Creed
Idris Elba for Beasts of No Nation
John Boyega for Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Jason Mitchell for Straight Outta Compton
Spike Lee for Chi-raq

Just off the top of my head.
What was the best any of those movies received for box office sales?

That's part of the equation. the best actresses and actors are more commonly selected from the films with the best ratings. I think out of the top several films, only about 5% of the cast were black. This makes the dice game at using d20 dice. Odds of no black nominees in a catagory at 77.38%. Odds that none of the 20 nominees are black at 35.85%, and no blacks for two years running at 12.85%.
 
So out of 200 nominations in the last decade, black actors have received 18, which not only comes in under your 1-in-10 standard (I'm not sure where you're getting that number), but below the representation of blacks in American demographics (~12-13 percent). And trust me, the numbers don't improve much the further back you go.

Assigning random probability to something that isn't random also doesn't help your rather specious argument.

The black demographics of Hollywood stars is about 10%. Not the national average.

18/200 is 9%. Pretty damn close to 10%.

OK, I double checked my source and read it wrong in a haste:

http://www.bunchecenter.ucla.edu/wp...2/2015-Hollywood-Diversity-Report-2-25-15.pdf

Figure 32 has 10% blacks in broadcast scripted shows. Figure 11 is where I got my 5/6th white and 1/6th minority.

If you read the material, minorities are 37.4 of the population, but only 16.7 of the roles. If we extrapolate using 12% of the population as blacks, then the extrapolation would mean they have 5.36% of the roles, which is actually pretty close to what we see if we examine the cast of the top 20 or so films each years.

If blacks are 5.36% of the eligible people for these awards, a purely random process would mean there is a 75.9% chance that no blacks are nominated to an individual category. A 33.2% chance that none are selected in a particular year, and a 11% chance none are selected for two years.

If blacks are 5.36% of these roles, then your 18 of 200 means blacks are getting a better representation than their Hollywood demographics.
 
What was the best any of those movies received for box office sales?
Star Wars. Quite a lot, no?

That's part of the equation. the best actresses and actors are more commonly selected from the films with the best ratings. [/QUOTE]No, I don't believe so. I'd say that more frequently the opposite is true, that the performers in big box-office hits get overlooked.
 
While Im not bothered by this particular list of nominees (but where's Iscar Isaac for BSA in Ec Machina!, or the kid from Beasts of No Nation for BA!). But the Hollywood movie industry isn't demographically representative for sure.

Not sure that's the Academy's fault.
 
The black demographics of Hollywood stars is about 10%. Not the national average.

18/200 is 9%. Pretty damn close to 10%.

OK, I double checked my source and read it wrong in a haste:

http://www.bunchecenter.ucla.edu/wp...2/2015-Hollywood-Diversity-Report-2-25-15.pdf

Figure 32 has 10% blacks in broadcast scripted shows. Figure 11 is where I got my 5/6th white and 1/6th minority.

If you read the material, minorities are 37.4 of the population, but only 16.7 of the roles. If we extrapolate using 12% of the population as blacks, then the extrapolation would mean they have 5.36% of the roles, which is actually pretty close to what we see if we examine the cast of the top 20 or so films each years.

If blacks are 5.36% of the eligible people for these awards, a purely random process would mean there is a 75.9% chance that no blacks are nominated to an individual category. A 33.2% chance that none are selected in a particular year, and a 11% chance none are selected for two years.

If blacks are 5.36% of these roles, then your 18 of 200 means blacks are getting a better representation than their Hollywood demographics.

Not all "minorities" are black.
 
While Im not bothered by this particular list of nominees (but where's Iscar Isaac for BSA in Ec Machina!, or the kid from Beasts of No Nation for BA!). But the Hollywood movie industry isn't demographically representative for sure.

Not sure that's the Academy's fault.

Well, it's quite obviously the Academy's fault, since they pick the nominees. At least as far as the Oscars are concerned.
 
Well, it's quite obviously the Academy's fault, since they pick the nominees. At least as far as the Oscars are concerned.

They pick from the field of movies produced by the industry, so the list of nominees will be demographically unrepresentative even if all biases were removed.
 
Not all "minorities" are black.

Yes, I know. Maybe if you read what I said careful, you would see the truth. of what I said.

I'll try again.

The report says 37.4% of the population is minorities and that they comprise of 16.7% of the film stars. If blacks are 12% of the population, then they are just under 1/3rd of the minorities. Now 1/3rd then, of the 16.7%, is about 5.6%.

Point is, blacks in Hollywood are not 12% like the population is.

Maybe you can find accurate numbers. Until then, please don't attack me for my numbers.
 
This is not a tea party in someone's backyard. It's the most prestigious awards in a glamorous, big and public industry, and one that presents itself as based on merit.

It's also not like there was only one movie made all year with minorities in major roles. Almost a half dozen excellent performances were ignored this year alone.

It's also not like this is an aberration for the Academy. They've ignored minorities for decades. This is merely the latest example of that, and an egregious one as well.

The award is not really quantifiably merit based and it's practically entirely subjective.
They also ignored movies, that I thought were fantastic.
 
Anyone have 10 sided dice?
What are you trying to prove with this example?

There are 5 nominees in 4 categories. That is 20 total nominees per year.

Blacks are 12% of the population. 12% of 20 nominees = 2.4. Thus, if we expect the list of actor nominees to reflect the demographics of the nation, in any given year there should be around 2 black nominees in the combined list of all those categories. Over the course of two years, it should be around 5. Instead, it is zero. That's a pretty substantial oversight.

You are obviously tripping yourself up somehow with the dice example.
 
What are you trying to prove with this example?

There are 5 nominees in 4 categories. That is 20 total nominees per year.

Blacks are 12% of the population. 12% of 20 nominees = 2.4. Thus, if we expect the list of actor nominees to reflect the demographics of the nation, in any given year there should be around 2 black nominees in the combined list of all those categories. Over the course of two years, it should be around 5. Instead, it is zero. That's a pretty substantial oversight.

You are obviously tripping yourself up somehow with the dice example.

If casting in Hollywood followed your demographics example maybe you would be right if those blacks gave excellent performances.

Why is it that the quality of the work is left out of the calculations in situations like this?

Also you can't lump in all nominations together.

Each category is separate in and of itself, so your 20 nominations isn't valid.
 
and after we assign quotas to the Oscars, should we then try to fix the N.B.A.?
 
I would pay to watch that debate.

No kidding.

If blacks are going to cry equal representation in the Oscars, then why not have a white revolt, and cry for equality in sports.

Why don't we?

Because we aren't race-baiters!
 
No kidding.

If blacks are going to cry equal representation in the Oscars, then why not have a white revolt, and cry for equality in sports.

Why don't we?

Because we aren't race-baiters!

Dancers in rap videos would be another area. I don't think whites are allowed there.
 
Why is it that the quality of the work is left out of the calculations in situations like this?
Because we are only talking about expectations. There is no reasonable way to quantify the quality of performances.

And as noted many times in this thread, numerous excellent performances by blacks were overlooked this year. At a minimum, the Golden Globes nominated Will Smith in Best Actor, and Idris Alba for Best Supporting Actor. There's also Michael B. Jordan, Jason Mitchell, Abraham Attah, Tessa Thompson.


Also you can't lump in all nominations together. Each category is separate in and of itself, so your 20 nominations isn't valid.
Uh... yes, yes we can. Those are the for acting nominations. There is no reason we cannot combine them. It's no less valid than, oh, looking at the history of the Oscars and stating that "1% of all Oscar winners are black."
 
Because we are only talking about expectations. There is no reasonable way to quantify the quality of performances.

And as noted many times in this thread, numerous excellent performances by blacks were overlooked this year. At a minimum, the Golden Globes nominated Will Smith in Best Actor, and Idris Alba for Best Supporting Actor. There's also Michael B. Jordan, Jason Mitchell, Abraham Attah, Tessa Thompson.



Uh... yes, yes we can. Those are the for acting nominations. There is no reason we cannot combine them. It's no less valid than, oh, looking at the history of the Oscars and stating that "1% of all Oscar winners are black."

That is a subjective opinion.
 
That is a subjective opinion.
As I noted, Will Smith and Idris Alba both got Golden Globe nods (which are also only 5 nominees per category). The performances of the people I mentioned are highly regarded.

Variety regarded Idris Alba, Will Smith, Michael Creed as among the "biggest snubs" this year: Oscars nominations 2016: Biggest Snubs and Surprises | Variety

EW considers Michael Creed and Idris Alba, Will Smith among 3 of the biggest snubs this year:
Michael B. Jordan (Creed) for Best Actor, Ryan Coogler (Creed) for Best Director, and Creed for Best Picture - Oscars Snubs 2016 - EW.com
Idris Elba (Beast of No Nation) for Best Supporting Actor - Oscars Snubs 2016 - EW.com
Will Smith (Concussion) for Best Actor - Oscars Snubs 2016 - EW.com

Time had Idris Elba and Will Smith.
Oscar Nominations 2016: The Biggest Snubs

FiveThirtyEight, looking at sites like PaddyPower (a gambling site), listed Idris Alba
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/oscar-nominations-2016-snubs/

And of course, the entire nominating process is subjective.
 
OK... According to whom? And who is evaluating the quality of said films?

The Academy, obviously.


Uh, no. This is not about probabilities. This is not a random process, where every actor has an equal chance of getting a nomination every year. It's about demographics and evaluations of merit.

The awards are not random, they are allegedly based on merit. There are 20 awards given out to actors every year. If the nominations reflected the population as a whole, 12% of nominations would go to blacks. Technically, that's 2.4. Over two years, that should be 5 nominations.

That's the problem right there. "Demographics," and representation there of, have absolutely nothing to do with this. Black actors and directors are not entitled to a certain number of Oscar nods simply because they happen to make up a given percentage of the population. That's simply not how this works.

They'll get the awards if they actually put in performances noteworthy enough on their own merit, as well as in comparison to competition from other actors, to warrant them in the eyes of the Academy. The simple fact of the matter, I'm afraid, is that they haven't done so for the past couple of years.

I'm sorry, but none of the performances you've listed strike me as being objectively "better" than the ones which were nominated to any significant degree. They are, at best, "in the same ballpark."

Granted, the logic of the Academy is occasionally obtuse, esoteric, and pedantic by any estimation ('Johnny-come-latey's' like freaking Jared Leto and Jennifer Lawrence warrant Oscars, but veteran actors like Leo and Murray don't?), and some of that does have to do with both the subjective nature of the medium, and the internal politics of the industry (I've often heard it said, for example, that the academy will award a consistently good actor with an Oscar for an only 'so-so' performance simply to make up for past snubs). However, that's simply the nature of the beast. Both white and black actors alike fall prey to that.

Trying to make this into any sort of racial issue is simply asinine. The bottom line here is that black actors win less because there are A) fewer of them, and B) they don't commonly turn in truly "wow"-worthy performances to begin with. Absolutely none of that warrants "special treatment" to somehow "even the odds."

It's a private institution, and it can direct itself as it pleases.

Gotta disagree with you on that one. The promoters of the "White Savior Complex" definitely do not qualify as "politically correct." If Dances With Wolves came out today, it would be eviscerated for it. Movies like The Help, The Blind Side and even Avatar got dinged on this point.

Well, it didn't come out today. Now did it?

For it's era, it was exceptionally "PC" (both of my parents hate it with a passion for that exact reason, in point of fact). Even today, it's still undeniably a rather Lefty film.
 
As I noted, Will Smith and Idris Alba both got Golden Globe nods (which are also only 5 nominees per category). The performances of the people I mentioned are highly regarded.

Variety regarded Idris Alba, Will Smith, Michael Creed as among the "biggest snubs" this year: Oscars nominations 2016: Biggest Snubs and Surprises | Variety

EW considers Michael Creed and Idris Alba, Will Smith among 3 of the biggest snubs this year:
Michael B. Jordan (Creed) for Best Actor, Ryan Coogler (Creed) for Best Director, and Creed for Best Picture - Oscars Snubs 2016 - EW.com
Idris Elba (Beast of No Nation) for Best Supporting Actor - Oscars Snubs 2016 - EW.com
Will Smith (Concussion) for Best Actor - Oscars Snubs 2016 - EW.com

Time had Idris Elba and Will Smith.
Oscar Nominations 2016: The Biggest Snubs

FiveThirtyEight, looking at sites like PaddyPower (a gambling site), listed Idris Alba
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/oscar-nominations-2016-snubs/

And of course, the entire nominating process is subjective.

Do you know who votes for the Golden Globe awards?
 
Trying to make this into any sort of racial issue is simply asinine.

Agreed. And if the Academy is looking to increase the number of nominations for non-white actors by increasing its "diversity" then it will difficult to conclude that the nominations under any such regime were based on merit.
 
The Academy, obviously.
Mason66, you've changed your name :mrgreen:


That's the problem right there. "Demographics," and representation there of, have absolutely nothing to do with this. Black actors and directors are not entitled to a certain number of Oscar nods simply because they happen to make up a given percentage of the population. That's simply not how this works.
Yes, it is, or ought to be. If a major entertainment and arts industry is not reflecting the experiences and contributions of 1/4 of our nation, that's a problem. And there should be no reason why an ignored group cannot bring this to everyone's attention.


I'm sorry, but none of the performances you've listed strike me as being objectively "better" than the ones which were nominated to any significant degree. They are, at best, "in the same ballpark."
There is no such thing as an objective measure of an acting performance. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Meanwhile, as noted: The Golden Globes did nominate Will Smith and Idris Alba this year. Many standard gatekeepers and reviewers also thought that there were numerous strong performances by black actors this year. No one is suggesting that Vin Diesel deserves and Oscar for Furious #9,354 because he is both an actor and non-white.


Trying to make this into any sort of racial issue is simply asinine. The bottom line here is that black actors win less because there are A) fewer of them, and B) they don't commonly turn in truly "wow"-worthy performances to begin with. Absolutely none of that warrants "special treatment" to somehow "even the odds."
I've been discussing this for days, and not once have I said anything about "special treatment." I am not advocating quotas, or a "special" minority award. I am pointing out that the Academy is not acknowledging the performances of minorities, most likely because their membership does not represent that of the nation as a whole.


It's a private institution, and it can direct itself as it pleases.
It's a private institution, it can direct itself as it pleases, and people can criticize or praise it as much as they deem appropriate.
 
Back
Top Bottom