Author Topic: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality  (Read 7193 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #45 on: March 05, 2018, 07:28:43 PM »

Offline eja117

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18752
  • Tommy Points: 1227
The thing that would really help Hollywood would be if they actually made good movies again. If an inclusion rider could change that then I'd be all for it.


Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #46 on: March 05, 2018, 08:09:03 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34958
  • Tommy Points: -27821
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
You guys are talking about the market taking care of everything. Why interfere with top actors installing an inclusion rider in their contracts? This isn't gov't intervention. It is the top talent (labor force) demanding a new working standard. Agree/disagree with the idea of such a rider, but it doesn't have anything to do with government interference.

If Gronk demands an inclusion rider in his blockbuster debut, the government doesn't need to intervene. If the production company violates one of his terms, he can sue and/or never work with said company again. That company will get a reputation for violating contract terms, whatever they may be.

What if Samuel Jackson insisted on an “exclusion” rider, where no whites are allowed on set?

What if an actor asked for no gays? No blacks? No Hispanics?

Not cool, right? A film studio contracting to be racist / sexist / homophobic is setting itself up for a lawsuit.

An “inclusion” contract that demands 50% minority representation would be discriminatory on its face. Racial quotas exclude certain classes solely on the basis of race, and are illegal.  While “diversity” can be seen as an added benefit, any hard line (i.e., “50%”) is discriminatory.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #47 on: March 05, 2018, 08:44:07 PM »

Offline JSD

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9950
  • Tommy Points: 1122
6.5% of the population represents something like 80% of the NBA. The NBA is 100% male. Is there discrimination going on in the NBA right now? I don’t think so. As a society we have become too quick to say “Racist! Sexist!” to explain inequality of outcome.  It sort of makes me think of the Google Memo and James Damore. The “honest conversation” is not happening. Plenty of brilliant actors of all colors, but the lack of diversity in Hollywood probably has more to do with population size and acting skills.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2018, 08:50:03 PM by JSD »

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #48 on: March 05, 2018, 08:56:56 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12705
  • Tommy Points: 1335
You guys are talking about the market taking care of everything. Why interfere with top actors installing an inclusion rider in their contracts? This isn't gov't intervention. It is the top talent (labor force) demanding a new working standard. Agree/disagree with the idea of such a rider, but it doesn't have anything to do with government interference.

If Gronk demands an inclusion rider in his blockbuster debut, the government doesn't need to intervene. If the production company violates one of his terms, he can sue and/or never work with said company again. That company will get a reputation for violating contract terms, whatever they may be.

What if Samuel Jackson insisted on an “exclusion” rider, where no whites are allowed on set?

What if an actor asked for no gays? No blacks? No Hispanics?

Not cool, right? A film studio contracting to be racist / sexist / homophobic is setting itself up for a lawsuit.

An “inclusion” contract that demands 50% minority representation would be discriminatory on its face. Racial quotas exclude certain classes solely on the basis of race, and are illegal.  While “diversity” can be seen as an added benefit, any hard line (i.e., “50%”) is discriminatory.

I doubt this happens (the "inclusion" contract). It's just talk.  Baseball requires minority interviews.  Not sure what's right; but I don't have a problem with discussing the issue, determining what's at the heart of the issue, and if a problem is identified, offering ideas to address it.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2018, 09:16:51 PM by Neurotic Guy »

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #49 on: March 05, 2018, 09:08:57 PM »

Offline JSD

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9950
  • Tommy Points: 1122
You guys are talking about the market taking care of everything. Why interfere with top actors installing an inclusion rider in their contracts? This isn't gov't intervention. It is the top talent (labor force) demanding a new working standard. Agree/disagree with the idea of such a rider, but it doesn't have anything to do with government interference.

If Gronk demands an inclusion rider in his blockbuster debut, the government doesn't need to intervene. If the production company violates one of his terms, he can sue and/or never work with said company again. That company will get a reputation for violating contract terms, whatever they may be.

What if Samuel Jackson insisted on an “exclusion” rider, where no whites are allowed on set?

What if an actor asked for no gays? No blacks? No Hispanics?

Not cool, right? A film studio contracting to be racist / sexist / homophobic is setting itself up for a lawsuit.

An “inclusion” contract that demands 50% minority representation would be discriminatory on its face. Racial quotas exclude certain classes solely on the basis of race, and are illegal.  While “diversity” can be seen as an added benefit, any hard line (i.e., “50%”) is discriminatory.


I mean, I think I give you abot 100 TPs a year, but have another one. Spot on. We need to stop looking at each other as a member of a group, but as individuals.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #50 on: March 05, 2018, 09:13:43 PM »

Offline Kuberski33

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3647
  • Tommy Points: 188
Oscar viewership down 20% from last year....cause people are sick to death of Hypocrite,Whiny,Self absorbed Celebrities. HA.
People are tired of getting lectured to by these idiots.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #51 on: March 05, 2018, 09:14:17 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12705
  • Tommy Points: 1335
6.5% of the population represents something like 80% of the NBA. The NBA is 100% male. Is there discrimination going on in the NBA right now? I don’t think so. As a society we have become too quick to say “Racist! Sexist!” to explain inequality of outcome.  It sort of makes me think of the Google Memo and James Damore. The “honest conversation” is not happening. Plenty of brilliant actors of all colors, but the lack of diversity in Hollywood probably has more to do with population size and acting skills.

Not sure, but I don't think anyone here said the words racist or sexist to describe the issue being discussed.   A look back to the original post will show that I was clear to say that I don't consider it racism.  Not sure why you went there when there was no need to.

It could be that you are correct that the lack of diversity has more to do with population and talent differentials, but it's also possible (probable) that neither you nor I actually know all the precise reasons for the disproportionality.   I am open to your point of view accounting for some of the difference, but I think that it is probably more complex than solely the result of population -- and I really hesitate to think that it rests with white people being inherently more talented than African-Americans.   

It is possible, certainly not definite, that bias (perhaps only subconsciously), racial power differentials, and perhaps racial preferences in the market itself have played varying roles in the disproportional representation of people of color in the movies.  Not sure I understand why you would blanketly rule out these possibilities.  But thanks for the discussion.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #52 on: March 05, 2018, 09:18:52 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32684
  • Tommy Points: 5371
You know, if an author of a book, comic, screenplay, poem, whatever makes a character a certain color, race, sex, whatever, just cast that character that way. If the character's color, race, sex, whatever isn't specified, cast it any way you want. I really don't care other than try to cast the best possible actor as that is what is going to make the story most believable and enjoyable.

Like in Godfather 3. Michael Corleone's daughter's actress has to be female, white and Italian looking. She doesn't have to be the worst actress in the world, Sophia Coppola. Give the part to the best actress. Not the director's daughter


Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #53 on: March 05, 2018, 09:48:17 PM »

Offline green_bballers13

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2153
  • Tommy Points: 265
You guys are talking about the market taking care of everything. Why interfere with top actors installing an inclusion rider in their contracts? This isn't gov't intervention. It is the top talent (labor force) demanding a new working standard. Agree/disagree with the idea of such a rider, but it doesn't have anything to do with government interference.

If Gronk demands an inclusion rider in his blockbuster debut, the government doesn't need to intervene. If the production company violates one of his terms, he can sue and/or never work with said company again. That company will get a reputation for violating contract terms, whatever they may be.

What if Samuel Jackson insisted on an “exclusion” rider, where no whites are allowed on set?

What if an actor asked for no gays? No blacks? No Hispanics?

Not cool, right? A film studio contracting to be racist / sexist / homophobic is setting itself up for a lawsuit.

An “inclusion” contract that demands 50% minority representation would be discriminatory on its face. Racial quotas exclude certain classes solely on the basis of race, and are illegal.  While “diversity” can be seen as an added benefit, any hard line (i.e., “50%”) is discriminatory.

Those comparisons are crazy. No one is saying that there shouldn't be any white men. They're saying that there should be more women & minorities. You can choose to take it as a slight against white men, but I don't believe that is the intention. Much like in professional coaching/general management, there's no need for such an imbalance. McDormand was using this as an example of how women (majority of people on earth) could rise in prominence by challenging the power brokers. For some reason, this threatens white men.

I don't think anyone is pushing for a hard quota. I think they're looking for improvement. In a year that so many powerful men were busted for sexual assault, I don't see this as a crazy idea.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #54 on: March 05, 2018, 09:58:19 PM »

Offline ManUp

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8282
  • Tommy Points: 251
  • Rondo doesn't believe in easy buckets...
I hate all this PC nonsense.  Just gives ammunition to white supremacist crowd.  Not only is the current US population still predominantly white but US history and modern world history has been predominantly driven by white European males.  Since movies are often historical there are going to be a lot of actors with white skin color in them. 

Labeling movies as "white movies" because they have a largely white cast is rather racist in my mind.  Cary Grant and Sidney Poitier were both great actors and two of my all-time favorites who just happen to have different skin coloring.  To separate them into being a "white actor" and a "black actor" is nonsense. 

The population that has much more of a complaint in Hollywood, and society in general, is women regardless of their race.  If I ask you to name top black actors, it is easy to start rattling them off: Denzel, Morgan Freeman, Samuel Jackson, Idris Elba, ...  Now name top black actresses:  ...  Older actors are still able to get good roles.  Older actresses not named Meryl Streep: ... Don't wait by the phone. 



Oh yes, because while white European males were making history the rest of the world was twiddling their thumbs. If Hollywood started letting people of color tell their stories and history white European males likely wouldn't like their place in it. It's pretty clear that Hollywood has a racial bias and your kidding yourself if you think non-white actors/actresses have the same level of opportunities

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #55 on: March 05, 2018, 10:02:27 PM »

Offline eja117

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18752
  • Tommy Points: 1227
You know, if an author of a book, comic, screenplay, poem, whatever makes a character a certain color, race, sex, whatever, just cast that character that way. If the character's color, race, sex, whatever isn't specified, cast it any way you want. I really don't care other than try to cast the best possible actor as that is what is going to make the story most believable and enjoyable.

Like in Godfather 3. Michael Corleone's daughter's actress has to be female, white and Italian looking. She doesn't have to be the worst actress in the world, Sophia Coppola. Give the part to the best actress. Not the director's daughter
And if they could not give roles to Will Smith's kid that would be good too

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #56 on: March 05, 2018, 10:14:49 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34958
  • Tommy Points: -27821
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
You guys are talking about the market taking care of everything. Why interfere with top actors installing an inclusion rider in their contracts? This isn't gov't intervention. It is the top talent (labor force) demanding a new working standard. Agree/disagree with the idea of such a rider, but it doesn't have anything to do with government interference.

If Gronk demands an inclusion rider in his blockbuster debut, the government doesn't need to intervene. If the production company violates one of his terms, he can sue and/or never work with said company again. That company will get a reputation for violating contract terms, whatever they may be.

What if Samuel Jackson insisted on an “exclusion” rider, where no whites are allowed on set?

What if an actor asked for no gays? No blacks? No Hispanics?

Not cool, right? A film studio contracting to be racist / sexist / homophobic is setting itself up for a lawsuit.

An “inclusion” contract that demands 50% minority representation would be discriminatory on its face. Racial quotas exclude certain classes solely on the basis of race, and are illegal.  While “diversity” can be seen as an added benefit, any hard line (i.e., “50%”) is discriminatory.

Those comparisons are crazy. No one is saying that there shouldn't be any white men. They're saying that there should be more women & minorities. You can choose to take it as a slight against white men, but I don't believe that is the intention. Much like in professional coaching/general management, there's no need for such an imbalance. McDormand was using this as an example of how women (majority of people on earth) could rise in prominence by challenging the power brokers. For some reason, this threatens white men.

I don't think anyone is pushing for a hard quota. I think they're looking for improvement. In a year that so many powerful men were busted for sexual assault, I don't see this as a crazy idea.

A contractual provision that requires 50% of a cast and crew to be minority is a hard quota, is illegal, and is unenforceable.  That’s how McDormand described it. Now, maybe she’s an idiot, but I’m going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she made an informed choice to advocate for illegal discrimination.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #57 on: March 05, 2018, 10:19:20 PM »

Offline green_bballers13

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2153
  • Tommy Points: 265
You know, if an author of a book, comic, screenplay, poem, whatever makes a character a certain color, race, sex, whatever, just cast that character that way. If the character's color, race, sex, whatever isn't specified, cast it any way you want. I really don't care other than try to cast the best possible actor as that is what is going to make the story most believable and enjoyable.

Like in Godfather 3. Michael Corleone's daughter's actress has to be female, white and Italian looking. She doesn't have to be the worst actress in the world, Sophia Coppola. Give the part to the best actress. Not the director's daughter
And if they could not give roles to Will Smith's kid that would be good too

I think people should be able to give any role to any person at any time. I like how Adam Sandler hooks his buddies up with roles. People like to work with people that they like.

I feel like the forest is lost through the trees on this one. Nobody is trying to punish white men. They're trying to help segments of society that could use help. One can agree/disagree that certain segments need or are deserving of help. I just don't get the cynicism that people have when they hear people wanting to help others. This isn't a zero-sum world. Just b/c McDormand mentioned that more women should be prominent in the movie business does not mean that white men have to lose jobs. Movie sets are fluid- they don't just hire 50 people for every movie regardless of the scope of work. Wealthy production companies can do more to be inclusive- it's not all that controversial.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #58 on: March 05, 2018, 10:24:10 PM »

Offline eja117

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18752
  • Tommy Points: 1227
You know, if an author of a book, comic, screenplay, poem, whatever makes a character a certain color, race, sex, whatever, just cast that character that way. If the character's color, race, sex, whatever isn't specified, cast it any way you want. I really don't care other than try to cast the best possible actor as that is what is going to make the story most believable and enjoyable.

Like in Godfather 3. Michael Corleone's daughter's actress has to be female, white and Italian looking. She doesn't have to be the worst actress in the world, Sophia Coppola. Give the part to the best actress. Not the director's daughter
And if they could not give roles to Will Smith's kid that would be good too

I think people should be able to give any role to any person at any time. I like how Adam Sandler hooks his buddies up with roles. People like to work with people that they like.

I feel like the forest is lost through the trees on this one. Nobody is trying to punish white men. They're trying to help segments of society that could use help. One can agree/disagree that certain segments need or are deserving of help. I just don't get the cynicism that people have when they hear people wanting to help others. This isn't a zero-sum world. Just b/c McDormand mentioned that more women should be prominent in the movie business does not mean that white men have to lose jobs. Movie sets are fluid- they don't just hire 50 people for every movie regardless of the scope of work. Wealthy production companies can do more to be inclusive- it's not all that controversial.
I think the cynicism is that last night she basically said "Since we do a terrible job of following our own stated beliefs, why don't we put it into our contracts to follow our own beliefs."


Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #59 on: March 05, 2018, 10:24:23 PM »

Offline green_bballers13

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2153
  • Tommy Points: 265
You guys are talking about the market taking care of everything. Why interfere with top actors installing an inclusion rider in their contracts? This isn't gov't intervention. It is the top talent (labor force) demanding a new working standard. Agree/disagree with the idea of such a rider, but it doesn't have anything to do with government interference.

If Gronk demands an inclusion rider in his blockbuster debut, the government doesn't need to intervene. If the production company violates one of his terms, he can sue and/or never work with said company again. That company will get a reputation for violating contract terms, whatever they may be.

What if Samuel Jackson insisted on an “exclusion” rider, where no whites are allowed on set?

What if an actor asked for no gays? No blacks? No Hispanics?

Not cool, right? A film studio contracting to be racist / sexist / homophobic is setting itself up for a lawsuit.

An “inclusion” contract that demands 50% minority representation would be discriminatory on its face. Racial quotas exclude certain classes solely on the basis of race, and are illegal.  While “diversity” can be seen as an added benefit, any hard line (i.e., “50%”) is discriminatory.

Those comparisons are crazy. No one is saying that there shouldn't be any white men. They're saying that there should be more women & minorities. You can choose to take it as a slight against white men, but I don't believe that is the intention. Much like in professional coaching/general management, there's no need for such an imbalance. McDormand was using this as an example of how women (majority of people on earth) could rise in prominence by challenging the power brokers. For some reason, this threatens white men.

I don't think anyone is pushing for a hard quota. I think they're looking for improvement. In a year that so many powerful men were busted for sexual assault, I don't see this as a crazy idea.

A contractual provision that requires 50% of a cast and crew to be minority is a hard quota, is illegal, and is unenforceable.  That’s how McDormand described it. Now, maybe she’s an idiot, but I’m going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she made an informed choice to advocate for illegal discrimination.

I'm assuming you're an attorney. My wife is an attorney. She takes everything that I say literally. She has told me that she has been trained to do so.

McDormand is not an attorney. She's an actress- an eccentric, prob loony Hollywood type. I'm not sure she is qualified to discuss the "contractual provision that requires 50% of a cast to be minority" (nor do I believe she said this, as women are not in the minority). Therefore, I don't think that we need to put much thought into the legal ramifications of her Oscar speech.

She got up on stage to make a point. You can pick it apart as you'd like. I choose to think that she was trying to create positive social change.