Author Topic: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality  (Read 7191 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #60 on: March 05, 2018, 10:33:21 PM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8157
  • Tommy Points: 809
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.
bolded is my takeaway from the night.
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #61 on: March 05, 2018, 10:47:13 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.
bolded is my takeaway from the night.

Yeah, she's tapped. She's also one of the most respected actresses, and crushed it in Fargo & 3 Billboards. Also good in Almost Famous and Moonrise Kingdom.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #62 on: March 05, 2018, 10:59:39 PM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8157
  • Tommy Points: 809
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.
bolded is my takeaway from the night.

Yeah, she's tapped. She's also one of the most respected actresses, and crushed it in Fargo & 3 Billboards. Also good in Almost Famous and Moonrise Kingdom.
Oh I know, she's an unbelievable actress. Wanted her to win last night.
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #63 on: March 06, 2018, 01:13:34 AM »

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.

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.

I was speaking generally about the overall tone of these award events and the standard SJW narratives, I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying. I'm not ruling out the possibilities you are suggesting - sure, racism may play a role. I'm trying to make the case that there are multiple variables at play. I wonder how much of the "blame pie" racism actually gets when considering the broader context of what some perceive as a problem in Hollywood.

Also, TP for a respectful discussion.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #64 on: March 06, 2018, 01:52:29 AM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10505
  • Tommy Points: 1176
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.

People would have been outraged if Gordon Hayward had demanded an inclusion rider when he signed with the Celtics that stated 50% of Celtics players must be white, all in the name of diversity.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #65 on: March 06, 2018, 02:13:23 AM »

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.

People would have been outraged if Gordon Hayward had demanded an inclusion rider when he signed with the Celtics that stated 50% of Celtics players must be white, all in the name of diversity.

I mean, in terms of proportion, it is a totally fair comparison.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #66 on: March 06, 2018, 08:05:44 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18880
  • Tommy Points: 888
Oscar viewership down 20% from last year....cause people are sick to death of Hypocrite,Whiny,Self absorbed Celebrities. HA.
It was still 26.5 million viewers though, which means it will end up as one of the top 5 watched events all year.  And that has been the trend in tv, I mean the Superbowl (which was a great game) was way off from last year as well. 

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #67 on: March 06, 2018, 08:55:53 AM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12705
  • Tommy Points: 1335
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 I agree with you (if I am understanding you correctly).   I think the vast majority of people favor merit-based decision making, and also favor the idea that in business (as opposed to government) people should have the right to hire their family, friends and people that they think they'll most like to work with.   This is well and good until society realizes that underlying the "people they think they most like to work with" is solely based on gender, skin color, or ethnicity.   In other words, left unfettered, an economic and social system CAN become one that significantly favors the appearance of one person over another in lieu of merit.   When this happens, it can push the various values of a system (or a person) into conflict: meritocracy; business-owner rights; equal opportunity; anti-discrimination; diversity...  these values battle it out, reflected pretty well in the discussions that go on here.   Speaking only for myself, the values that I have against discrimination and in favor of equal opportunity need to be pretty clearly violated to me for me to favor something that would threaten meritocracy or the right of a business owner to make autonomous business decisions.   But there is definitely a line where internal values come into conflict with one another.

On another note (related), my wife and I were browsing a few weeks ago in a store in Concord and I came across a book titled: "Public Officials of Massachusetts 1933-34".  This interested me because I knew my grandfather was a state rep around that time.  He only served one term -- a uneducated newspaper delivery man who won one term as a state rep.  Remarkably, he was there, picture, bio and all.  After the purchase, I was intrigued by the pictures.  I counted 242 state reps; 2 woman; 0 people of color (disclaimer: I am, of course, concluding this based on their pictures which do no always tell the whole story).  42 state senators; 0 women; 0 POC.  Of nearly 300 people representing the interests of the people of Massachusetts 99% were white men.  Of course, not all white men agree on everything, nor do they reflect the interests of only white males, but I think it is interesting to see, in black and white, just how significantly decision-making was dominated by white men for the majority of our nation's history.  Eventually, the social and political climate has evolved, but in the meantime, women endured 150 years without the right to vote; without true governmental representation.  People of color, of course, went even longer without equal rights with regard to voting, education, workplace equality, etc.   I understand the ideal of merit-based decision-making and I agree with that value, but sometimes looking in the mirror allows us to see what we really are, and affords us the opportunity to ask whether or not we are OK with what is looking back at us.   It may be fine for us to say that we'll continue to evolve (we definitely have evolved) -- let it take it's course.  I suppose that's fine unless you've experienced days, weeks, years, decades, generations of powerlessness.  We don't come by out current challenges by accident.  It's probably a strong agreement here (me included) that quotas "inclusion-contracts", requirements for minority interviews... are not desired policies and reflect inadequate solutions.  What we mostly want is a cultural change in which bias based on race, gender, etc. is in the past and individuals are judged based on character and qualifications.   But when we're faced with a mirror that reflects something that just looks wrong, I think most of us are compelled to at least ask the question, what (if anything) can we do about it?   Frances McDormand offered what I think is a daft solution, but I respect the notion that she sees a problem and offers an idea.   It's only from respectful open dialogue and the desire to hear and understand other's perspectives that mutually satisfying solutions can occur.  That's why 282 white men and 2 white women should not be making all the policy decisions for a diverse population. Unfortunately, it took 200 years to change that power differential.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #68 on: March 06, 2018, 09:20:01 AM »

Offline eja117

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18752
  • Tommy Points: 1227
If people refused to watch movies that are obviously disrespectful Hollywood wouldn't make them. For example Matt Damon recently played an Asian in Great Wall or something.  Nobody called for boycotts or anything. It's up to consumers just as much as Hollywood.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #69 on: March 06, 2018, 09:32:33 AM »

Offline incoherent

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1852
  • Tommy Points: 278
  • 7 + 11 = 18
Asking for an inclusion rider isn’t racist.  I fail to see this point of view. White males have all the power and obviously have so much power they feel completely safe sexually harassing women in Hollywood.  Let’s take some of that power away by giving jobs to other races and genders so white men don’t have complete control in Hollywood because clearly that hasn’t been working well since the inception of movies.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #70 on: March 06, 2018, 09:35:13 AM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10505
  • Tommy Points: 1176
If people refused to watch movies that are obviously disrespectful Hollywood wouldn't make them. For example Matt Damon recently played an Asian in Great Wall or something.  Nobody called for boycotts or anything. It's up to consumers just as much as Hollywood.

That actually happened?  Did it do well at the box office?  That's kind of embarrassing, if so.

Like, what kind of idiot would think it makes any sense to have Matt Damon pretend to be an Asian character?  Are people actually captivated by watching a white guy pretend to be Asian?

No wonder I've never heard of this movie.  Or maybe I have and just completely wiped it from my mind due to the lunacy of it.  IDK...but I'm not even going to bother to look it up on google now that I have heard about it.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #71 on: March 06, 2018, 09:38:14 AM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10505
  • Tommy Points: 1176
Asking for an inclusion rider isn’t racist.  I fail to see this point of view. White males have all the power and obviously have so much power they feel completely safe sexually harassing women in Hollywood.  Let’s take some of that power away by giving jobs to other races and genders so white men don’t have complete control in Hollywood because clearly that hasn’t been working well since the inception of movies.

Denying someone employment based on their race is by definition discriminatory.  Attempting to right one type of discrimination with another is every bit as bad as the original discrimination and will lead nowhere good.

I get that we should strive to create a world where there is equality, I want that too.  But come on folks, use your brain a little and take the time to actually think about what you're saying.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #72 on: March 06, 2018, 09:52:04 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17864
  • Tommy Points: 1286
If people refused to watch movies that are obviously disrespectful Hollywood wouldn't make them. For example Matt Damon recently played an Asian in Great Wall or something.  Nobody called for boycotts or anything. It's up to consumers just as much as Hollywood.

That actually happened?  Did it do well at the box office?  That's kind of embarrassing, if so.

Like, what kind of idiot would think it makes any sense to have Matt Damon pretend to be an Asian character?  Are people actually captivated by watching a white guy pretend to be Asian?

No wonder I've never heard of this movie.  Or maybe I have and just completely wiped it from my mind due to the lunacy of it.  IDK...but I'm not even going to bother to look it up on google now that I have heard about it.
Of course it didn't. Sure, there was a Chinese movie about the Great Wall starring Matt Damon. Except he played some dude named William Garin, a European mercenary that got stuck on the wall or something.
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #73 on: March 06, 2018, 09:53:34 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18880
  • Tommy Points: 888
If people refused to watch movies that are obviously disrespectful Hollywood wouldn't make them. For example Matt Damon recently played an Asian in Great Wall or something.  Nobody called for boycotts or anything. It's up to consumers just as much as Hollywood.
Um, there were massive protests about The Great Wall being a whitewashed movie (of course Damon wasn't playing an Asian).

http://ew.com/article/2016/08/04/great-wall-director-addresses-whitewashing-controversy-matt-damon/

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/dec/07/matt-damon-on-great-wall-whitewashing-i-didnt-take-role-from-chinese-actor

http://www.vulture.com/2016/12/matt-damon-great-wall-whitewashing-response.html


Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #74 on: March 06, 2018, 09:53:39 AM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10505
  • Tommy Points: 1176
If people refused to watch movies that are obviously disrespectful Hollywood wouldn't make them. For example Matt Damon recently played an Asian in Great Wall or something.  Nobody called for boycotts or anything. It's up to consumers just as much as Hollywood.

That actually happened?  Did it do well at the box office?  That's kind of embarrassing, if so.

Like, what kind of idiot would think it makes any sense to have Matt Damon pretend to be an Asian character?  Are people actually captivated by watching a white guy pretend to be Asian?

No wonder I've never heard of this movie.  Or maybe I have and just completely wiped it from my mind due to the lunacy of it.  IDK...but I'm not even going to bother to look it up on google now that I have heard about it.
Of course it didn't. Sure, there was a Chinese movie about the Great Wall starring Matt Damon. Except he played some dude named William Garin, a European mercenary that got stuck on the wall or something.

Well that makes a lot more sense.