I didn't wasn't he Oscars yesterday, I hardly ever do, but was well aware of the racial controversy surrounding it this year. As I was looking at some of the winners through my news feed, yay Leo, I had a thought.

Is the apparent lack of black/minority nominations really an Oscar problem? A Hollywood problem?

Or is it a screenwriting problem???

Is the lack of diversity a reflection on the lack of diversity when it comes to writers? I mean I'm white. When I write most of my scripts or outline stories most of my characters are white because that's the point of view I'm most comfortable with. It's just the way I think.

I mean Hollywood can only make films based o what they have to work with. If they aren't given a lot of options, are they really to be blamed?

(Yes I know they ultimately CHOOSE to make or not make whatever they want in the end. Do they have limited options I guess is what I'm saying.)

I think that you make an interesting point about white writers writing white characters.

I am also white, and while I usually don't write characters with their race in mind (although in my sitcom pilot Back to Class I specifically wrote three white and three Latino main characters to accurately represent the demographics of the area I set it in), but often times I think the names we choose can make people who read the script think of the characters as white.

I think the names are the hardest part, because I usually don't want to write a character as specifically white or black (or Latino or Asian) but when choosing a name, white writers like myself I think will often choose names more common with white people. Although, for me, white names may be the result of growing up in a more white area. Washington, while not one of the most white states out there, is a fairly white state. Writers from somewhere like New Hampshire may unintentionally write white characters more often than writers from somewhere like New Mexico or South Carolina.

The Oscar voters are 94% white and 54% over 60. It may be racism or it may be that with those demographics there is little chance  that the voters represent contemporary tastes or views. I have had too many what the fuck moments with the Oscars (e.g., this year, IMO there is zero chance that Spotlight was the best film) to link anything then out of touch with the voters motives.

Quoted from eldave1 The Oscar voters are 94% white and 54% over 60. It may be racism or it may be that with those demographics there is little chance  that the voters represent contemporary tastes or views. I have had too many what the fuck moments with the Oscars (e.g., this year, IMO there is zero chance that Spotlight was the best film) to link anything then out of touch with the voters motives.

Good point. I didn't think about who makes up the voters which I guess is where the controversy comes from. (I didn't pay too much attention to it honestly. Seemed like more of the big pity parties that seem to be all the rage in the country right now.)

I just write characters... I rarely write them with a colour in mind... so it's actually a casting issue ;-)

It's a complex issue with countless layers and angles. I think the one universal factor is that there is indeed a lack of opportunities for black/minority actors on all levels. I think everyone is responsible on one level or another. That said, it'd be impossible to address everything in one post, even a long one, so I'll wait to see how this conversation pans out.

I think on the writing front, it's a slippery slope. Personally, I write without race in mind, and I think many of my characters could be cast as non-white, no problem. At the same time, if I don't make mention of the race or give any indications otherwise, I think it's a safe bet they'll be cast as white.

Beyond that, I think any writer worth their salt wants to write from their own experience and can't be expected to emulate others' experience just to fulfill cultural expectations, especially if they don't have the skills to pull it off. At the same time, I think any writer worth their salt wants to write diverse and complex characters from all walks of life and will put in the work to make it happen. Personally, I don't think anyone should have to make you do any of these things; you have to decide for yourself.

In the end, writers really don't have a lot of power, and there're so many gatekeepers in between your script and a finished film that people will have even marginal access to. But you can get the ball rolling... or not. Maybe said gatekeepers will see things your way... or not. Certainly, though, at least in the beginning, you have the potential to wield some influence. Might as well take advantage of it while you can, because who's to say when that window'll be closed.

Many of my characters are black.

Quoted from CameronD I didn't wasn't he Oscars yesterday

CD,

Have you been at the sherry again?

I haven't. I don't like sherry.

You can blame the producers and you can blame the directors. I don't mean about the sherry.

The situation isn't good. But it's getting better.

I never thought I'd see a black guy hosting a show like The Daily Show.

At the moment there's bigger racist problems that need sorting. And one of them is running for president.

R

^ Agreed.

I guess it depends what you think the Oscars are. If they're a cultural touchstone, maybe it's worth talking about representation. If they're an embarrassingly crass four-hour advertisement for Hollywood, maybe they can just be left on their own to slide blissfully into complete irrelevance.

The larger issue of race in Hollywood is, as James says, big. I'll cast my vote for "not a screenwriting/screenwriter problem" and leave it at that.

Hmm...

I'm a black writer and I don't bother giving my characters a specific ethnicity unless it's important to story. (Maybe I should start stating ethnicity)

I really agree with Anthony about it being heavily influenced by the director and casting director. Movies to that scale are obligated to maximize profits so they believe that a non white lead would hurt box office performance.

#AffirmativeActionLiberalpoliticalCorrectnessDoesNotWorkAndNeverWill

As a matter of fact, it destroys opportunities for all colors (which true talent does discriminate from). Forces are at work trying to manipulate the minds of people through sensationalism such as the Oscar event. Don't fall for it. It will not bring humanity to a better place. It divides. It distorts. It lies.

Those that collect census info, those that organize data, are the same people that conspire to use the very data you volunteer against YOU. With the sole purpose of personal gain. Think it ain't so? Then you are a sheep.

Reject political correctblahblahblahism.

Basaaa

Quoted from TonyDionisio As a matter of fact, it destroys opportunities for all colors (which true talent does discriminate from).

Tony, I have a question.

I totally get some of the arguments against, say, affirmative action. Those make sense to me.

I'm just curious -- if ever there was an area where the meritocracy concept clearly falls down, isn't it with something like the Oscars? Acting "talent" is pretty close to completely subjective, so all-white nominees might indicate more bias than, say, an all-white office staff somewhere. Given that, is representation perhaps more worth talking about at the Oscars than somewhere like university admissions, where people are judged by hard data? Or no?

In my current screenplay I have described two chars as African American and Latino because they are. They ain't white so I said they weren't.

Like the Grammys, the importance or indeed relevance of the Oscars finished years ago when the last classic film was made.  Lol

Quoted from Heretic I'm just curious -- if ever there was an area where the meritocracy concept clearly falls down, isn't it with something like the Oscars? Acting "talent" is pretty close to completely subjective, so all-white nominees might indicate more bias than, say, an all-white office staff somewhere. Given that, is representation perhaps more worth talking about at the Oscars than somewhere like university admissions, where people are judged by hard data? Or no?

Very well said. I believe you articulated the point exactly.

I can't imagine going from a once a year nomination "show" to the higher education system is a good comparison. Although, both are 2 peas in the same liberal pod.

I mean, first we have to agree on what the goal is here. Are we truly looking to arrive in a better place for every race of people in the world or is this hyper-emotional sensationalism race bait? I'd say the latter.

Aren't "white" people different shades of white? What is the threshold of "whiteness"  we are willing to award something before this imaginary racist "feel good fairness" kicks in? Then what -- #OscarsNotYellowEnough? See how stupid analyzing something like this truly is? What better place do race baiters want to go? What will it look like? I'd like to know. I doubt they know, or even care. How about a mandate for the next 5 years of Oscars to only award a certain color of skin awards regardless of talent in the name of affirmative action - dumb right?

Stack the fact the award  was twice hosted by a "so black" host, who by the way is a raving racist himself - who's only ever been funny making fun of his own race while degrading women. He can do it, so why not? Every time he's tried to be truly funny in a movie without raving racism, he failed. But, let's let him have a forum while we go after a truly funny guy such as a Cosby. Again, my opinion.

Silly shit IMO.

Quoted from TonyDionisio I can't imagine going from a once a year nomination "show" to the higher education system is a good comparison. Although, both are 2 peas in the same liberal pod. I mean, first we have to agree on what the goal is here. Are we truly looking to arrive in a better place for every race of people in the world or is this hyper-emotional sensationalism race bait? I'd say the latter. Aren't "white" people different shades of white? What is the threshold of "whiteness"  we are willing to award something before this imaginary racist "feel good fairness" kicks in? Then what -- #OscarsNotYellowEnough? See how stupid analyzing something like this truly is? What better place do race baiters want to go? What will it look like? I'd like to know. I doubt they know, or even care. How about a mandate for the next 5 years of Oscars to only award a certain color of skin awards regardless of talent in the name of affirmative action - dumb right? Stack the fact the award  was twice hosted by a "so black" host, who by the way is a raving racist himself - who's only ever been funny making fun of his own race while degrading women. He can do it, so why not? Every time he's tried to be truly funny in a movie without raving racism, he failed. But, let's let him have a forum while we go after a truly funny guy such as a Cosby. Again, my opinion. Silly shit IMO.

While I disagree with your rant on liberalism, the census and affirmative action (that's a discussion for another day) - I think you missed the point of the post entirely. The question was merely this - is the protest really rooted in Affirmative Action.

Affirmative Action at it's core means that an individual of a minority would receive preferential treatment over a non-minority as a tool to address prior discrimination.  The "preferential treatment is easily documented (e.g., a white person and a black person have identical SAT scores, but the black person is admitted to college over the white person based on their race).

That is not what the complaint is here. It is that black actor or film is not being recognized when they were equally as good or better than the white actor or film. i.e., they are not seeking preferential treatment (affirmative action). Instead, they are seeking equal treatment.
The fact of the matter is that 94% of the Academy voters are white. Do you not think that there may be a chance that a different set of nominees would have arisen of the inverse were true? (i.e., 94% of the voters were black). Same with the fact that more than half are over 60 years old.

It is just silly to think that the demographics of those who vote have no impact on the films and actors they vote for.

Black actors have won Oscars before... it is the same (type of) people voting then as it is now. I honestly feel that the fact that there aren't any black actors in it this time around shows it as being fair. There are very few quality black actors in comparison to white actors.

Maybe there is a sum we could do to help figure this out. Something like counting the total amount of white and black actors and then dividing by the amount of Oscar ceremonies they have held... it's really too early in the morning for me to think properly, but you get what I mean.

It could turn out that there have been too many black nominees.

Quoted from DustinBowcot Black actors have won Oscars before... it is the same (type of) people voting then as it is now. I honestly feel that the fact that there aren't any black actors in it this time around shows it as being fair. There are very few quality black actors in comparison to white actors. Maybe there is a sum we could do to help figure this out. Something like counting the total amount of white and black actors and then dividing by the amount of Oscar ceremonies they have held... it's really too early in the morning for me to think properly, but you get what I mean. It could turn out that there have been too many black nominees.

Whether or not the Oscars are racist is unknowable since we have no real way of looking into people's minds. That being said, it is easily determinable whether the voting demographics
align with the participating demographics.  They clearly do not.

Tony's argument is that the oscarssowhite movement has it's roots in Affirmative Action. It does not. It's core is that there should be equal treatment - not preferential treatment.

There is a site that does a pretty good job of breaking down the numbers. It is here:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2016/01/film-and-race

It basically concludes two things:

1. Black Actors have received nominations and awards proportional to their representation in the industry.

2. Whites have received nominations and awards far in excess to their representation in the industry. This quote in particular:

Could the “whiteout” be a statistical glitch? If the data were random, such a glitch would be hugely unlikely. A 2013 survey of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), an American union for film performers, suggests that 70% of its members are white. If all of the Guild’s members were equally likely to receive Oscar nominations, regardless of race, then over a two-year period 28 out of 40 nominations would be of white actors. The chances of no single person of colour being nominated across two ceremonies would be exceptionally small—even during a 15-year span, the odds of seeing at least one sequence of back-to-back whiteouts are around one in 100,000.


Very long winded way of saying - (1) I have no idea if there is any element of racism in the voting. (2) I am confident that the make up of those who vote bears little resemblance to those who participate both on an age basis and a ethnicity basis. (3) I don't believe black actors are seeking preferential treatment.  

Quoted from eldave1 http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2016/01/film-and-race It basically concludes two things: 1. Black Actors have received nominations and awards proportional to their representation in the industry. 2. Whites have received nominations and awards far in excess to their representation in the industry.

How can whites be over represented while blacks are proportionate? It's impossible... unless we add an extra demographic to the equation. If black nominees are proportional, then where are the extra white places coming from?

Oscars aside, when Amy Schumer received a Golden Globes nomination for Best Screenplay (Trainwreck), that pretty much magnified that Hollywood's a social club, and the awards nominations and voting is a popularity contest - not an honest evaluation of the work.

As for whether the Oscars nominations have had an element of racism, I don't need metrics and analysis to know what I can see with my own eyes. It exists. On what level, I don't know, but it obviously exists.

Quoted from DustinBowcot How can whites be over represented while blacks are proportionate? It's impossible... unless we add an extra demographic to the equation. If black nominees are proportional, then where are the extra white places coming from?

Because Hispanics, Asians, etc are grossly underrepresented (yes - it's the other demographics). So - the mathematical data concludes:

Black Nominations percent roughly equal Population
White Nominations percent much greater than population
Other groups (Hispanics, etc) much less than population.

Now, none of the above = racism. Could be Hispanics were proportionally bad and Whites were proportionally good. Who knows? That being said - whenever the vote is going to be subjective (i.e, there is no merit based metric that determines who is best) I think it is always better to have those who's opinion we are relying on represent the population they serve. If I am on trial for robbing a young black man - I don't want a jury of 12 black twenty year olds. If I want someone to vote on the best rock song of the year - I don't want a bunch of 80 year olds voting.    etc.

The most important thing IMO is that the Oscars have essentially proved to be a catalyst for a bigger conversation about race in Hollywood, which is good. The controversy over the nominations themselves is a little overblown. The Oscars have always been bullshit in that regard.

That said, if the Academy is to do anything at all, I think the voter demographic is worth a look, as arguments for the lack of diversity amongst them do have merit. The alternative would essentially be establishing some kind of quota for non-white nominees, which would be all kinds of bullshit. Race issue aside, the voters are on record for not even watching some of the films they're supposed to be voting for and making decisions based on petty beefs with individuals associated with the nominees. Time is ripe to clean house, I think.

makes sense to me

Quoted from CJ Walley I don't think the nominations have to be inline with population statistics, I don't understand why that comparison is made. It should be entirely possible for the nominations to be 100% black if the best productions and performances of the year just so happen to come from black industry members. What the Oscars has highlighted is that there is a lack of diversity with key influencers and decision makers and that appears to be trickling down the industry.

They don't have to be. I think the question really is would it be better if they were. IMO - yes. Unlike objective measures (grades, test scores, etc.) the voting is entirely a subjective process. By matter of comparison, when I think of all my early musical favorites who never won a grammy (e.g., Bob Marley, Led Zeppelin, Queen, Janis Joplin, Journey, The Who, The Kinks, etc.) I can't help but to think that some of that had to do with the fact that a bunch of old foks had most of the votes. I just can't see how anyone could argue that a group of 60 year old plus white guys opinions are reflective of the culture or have a monopoly on what in their opinion is good or bad.

Once again, what is the goal here? Is it to get everyone to agree that the Oscar's are influenced by racism? You want 100% agreement that forces are working behind the panel to discriminate? Ain't gonna happen. You want action taken for future Oscar's such as regulations and sanctions to change the industry image? Do you need to be explained how dangerous that would be?

You don't like something, boycott it. Lower ratings will force the show to change something about itself (and it is a business, not a government agency) Perhaps then it will be what you're after - if you even find out what that is. Or let it die out, watch one of the other dozens of shows.

Just please, reject race baiting. Reject these clever hash tags and their nefarious agendas.

Tony, I'll try rephrasing my question:

You said, I think, that "true talent" will shine through. Since judging things like acting, production designing, or music is completely subjective, is the Oscars really a place that "true talent" can shine?

To answer your questions in kind (I'm not sure if they were directed at me):

I have no goal regarding the Oscars as I think the whole thing is pathetic -- I am however sympathetic to people who think that the Oscars are important but that the judges are less likely to be interested in certain films/people. To the rest of your questions, no, no, no, and it wouldn't be dangerous because the Oscars have no impact on real life.

Quoted Text Once again, what is the goal here? Is it to get everyone to agree that the Oscar's are influenced by racism?

Nope - I've said several times I have no idea whether or not they are.

Quoted Text You want 100% agreement that forces are working behind the panel to discriminate? Ain't gonna happen.

Nope -see above.

Quoted Text You want action taken for future Oscar's such as regulations and sanctions to change the industry image? Do you need to be explained how dangerous that would be?

Nope - don't want any sanctions any never asked for any. I merely stated (a) it would be preferable to have the demographics of the voters align somewhat with the demographics of the participants (b) the protest is not about affirmative action in that they are not seeking preferential treatment - they are seeking equal treatment.

Quoted Text You don't like something, boycott it. Lower ratings will force the show to change something about itself (and it is a business, not a government agency) Perhaps then it will be what you're after - if you even find out what that is. Or let it die out, watch one of the other dozens of shows.

That is an alternative that has been exercised by many - ironically, you seem to disagree with their actions. You are the one that stated that - Forces are at work trying to manipulate the minds of people through sensationalism such as the Oscar event

Quoted Text Just please, reject race baiting. Reject these clever hash tags and their nefarious agendas.

Tony - you need to read before you react and attempt to stay on point.  Again - my position was - whether you agree with those who raised the issue or not - their issue is not affirmative action based as stated in your post. They are seeking equal treatment. It is impossible for me to say they have not received it. It is equally impossible for you to know that they have.

Not sure anyone mentioned regulations or sanctions, but indeed that would be crap. No goals on my part; just adding to the conversation.

Quoted from James McClung Not sure anyone mentioned regulations or sanctions, but indeed that would be crap. No goals on my part; just adding to the conversation.

Hence MY point. The conversation is moot unless you decide to take action. With regard to leveling the "playing" field, you know it is already being implemented behind closed doors as we speak -- that's how these people make deals to save jobs and face.

Look, I live in NY, the biggest melting pot in the world, and I know EXACTLY were this is heading, you will see changes -- and those changes will not bring us to a better place. Hence why I am telling all of you not to regurgitate this affirmative action conversation at its very core. Reject it.

Quoted from TonyDionisio Hence MY point. The conversation is moot unless you decide to take action. With regard to leveling the "playing" field, you know it is already being implemented behind closed doors as we speak -- that's how these people make deals to save jobs and face. Look, I live in NY, the biggest melting pot in the world, and I know EXACTLY were this is heading, you will see changes -- and those changes will not bring us to a better place. Hence why I am telling all of you not to regurgitate this affirmative action conversation at its very core. Reject it.

This is such hyperbole. One would have to conclude that any theoretical discussion is rendered moot unless it is followed by some certain draconian action. No one has discussed sanctions or regulations. And since you keep citing affirmative action - please at least quote one source where someone is asking for preferential treatment when it comes to the Oscars. Just one and I will listen.

The only question you have to answer is whether or not you believe that an award based entirely on subjective measures could be influenced by the demographics of those exercising the judgement. i.e., if the voting membership was 94% black under the age of 30, do you think the awards would be the same? If you conclude yes, okay dokay. I happen to think otherwise.

I'm not sure what the exact process is for Oscar nominations. I could look it up. Or instead I can just wing it and get to my point. Can you guess which option I went with?

That's right. There's not enough minutes left in my life for such mincing about.

I do know that the only people nominated for Straight Outta Compton were the screenwriters. And all of them were white. Either these people have some cool black friends or someone not white helped them make that dialogue work as well as it did.

The only person nominated for Creed was Sylvester Stallone.

Now, if I was black, I would assume someone is definitely taking the piss.

R