Diversity and Representation in Media

Of course said investor tends to have the hubris that their Asian lead movie will be made with no issue, it could not possibly run into the very same roadblock, oh no.

edited 26th Feb '16 4:26:15 AM by IndirectActiveTransport

"Also...oh, Lucy. Don't get me started about Lucynote AKA "Scarlett Johannson kills a whole bunch of Asian people and kneecaps a taxi driver for not speaking English, this post is long enough as it is."

I saw that movie a mouth ago and all controversy about that scene and...im surprise that nobody said anything about what happen after: that she go a hospital and shoot a men in operation table right away, but anyway.

There's a writer named Marguerite Bennett who writes a comic called Bombshells set in an alternate history version of World War 2, and several of the major characters are women of color or LGBT people (the woman in charge of the military effort is black and the lead scientist is a Nisei woman).

When someone asked about that and whether or not it was historically accurate, she pointed out that there were tons of soldiers of color in World War 2, and the only reason we think of that idea as inaccurate is because the vast majority of period movies and TV shows tend to flat out ignore minorities of the time and pretend everyone before 1960 was white and straight.

During WW 2 the units were not mixed, and the black units would only get certain jobs. So yes, it would be unrealistic to put them in certain movies in certain roles.

@Swanpride: Like I said, depending on the setting, there are perfectly justified reasons for a movie to be all-male or all-white, or both. But instead of just calmly presenting those reasons, which is what they should have done (and which would have been enough for me), the Coen brothers stated that the very idea of consciously considering diversity as a factor when making a movie was idiotic. This isn't really about ''Hail Caesar!" anymore. To quote them once again:

What they're accidentally saying here is that all characters essentially default to white. If you don't set out with the express intention of writing a story about "four black people, three Jews, and a dog" (slightly unfortunate phrasing there), then all of the characters are automatically white. There can't be any characters that just, you know, happen to not be white. So apparently, the normal way to write a story is to write one about seven white people and a dog, and not include any POC unless there's a damned good reason for it. (Which is certainly a philosophy they seem to have taken to heart.)

Oh, trust me, I've done some ranting about that scene as well. The taxi driver scene was just the one that always struck me as being even more egregious, because it was completely gratuitous on her part. Shooting the guy on the operating table, she at least had some sort of self-serving reason to do. But when I saw a blonde white woman kneecap a cabbie simply because he didn't speak English, I left the film thinking "pretty sure that was a hate crime."

Not familiar with the comic in question, but just from glancing at its page, this is a comic where magicians, aliens, Amazons, and plant people fight Nazis. Given all that, people of color serving in all branches of the military is not going to shatter my suspension of disbelief.

The problem with this kind of thing is when people are very...selective about realism in their works. Another example that comes to my mind is The Witcher 3 (the only one I've played), which has elves, wizards, shapeshifters, extradimensional big-game hunters, griffons...but no people of color, because it's fantasy Europe and that would be so unrealistic. Despite the fact that, realistically, people of color have been around in Europe for a long damn time.

edited 26th Feb '16 3:48:29 PM by RBluefish

Well it's a good thing neither I nor her said anything about black people making sense in every war movie then, huh?

Her point was that the stories told in period settings are overwhelmingly about white people. Nobody was arguing that there needed to be black people in Saving Private Ryan, the point was that it shouldn't be a situation where basically 99.9 percent of all movies and TV shows set during the time period exclusively deal with white people.

I just unsubscribed to this dude from Youtube just now that made this video about Will Smith and his "suspect motivations" for bashing the Oscars and the #OscarsSoWhite hashtag in general. Dude basically said that diversity is "pandering" and that Will Smith is a mediocre actor who didn't get any attention for his by-the-numbers performance in Concussion and that's why Will Smith is mad at the Oscars.

Ugh.

edited 26th Feb '16 3:57:17 PM by higherbrainpattern

These people are so exasperating. So the (very) occasional movie that includes in major roles POC, LGBTQ people, women, what have you...that's pandering. But dozens upon dozens of movies (and comics, and games^note especially games, and books) that feature the same square-jawed white guy because the executives are terrified of somehow alienating someone...that's not?

See, the thing is, even if that were true (and hey for all I know, it could be), Will Smith was not the only person in Hollywood talking about this.

Heck, while I loathe people arguing that this is just minorities being jealous that none of them gave good enough performances or made good enough movies to get nominated, it's not just minorities talking about this. Even Sly Stallone said he was gonna boycott the show for snubbing Ryan Coogler and Michael B. Jordan before Coogler talked him out of it.

The thing is that most people don't care about or follow these kinds of issues in the first place. It's really easy to say things like that when you're not a minority and/or haven't been made aware of their problems. Or you could just be an ass, I guess.

That's why I never got why certain people who have never actually experienced racism feel comfortable telling people who do actually experience racism that they clearly don't know what they're talking about.

What I don't get about all this controversy at the Oscars is, well, why should we give a damn?

The Oscars have rarely, if ever, been correct in what the actual best actor, director, picture, etc. of the year is. Remember ten years ago? How Crash won Best Picture? And how even the director of that film thinks it shouldn't have won?

So it's just more of the same: the Oscars are irrelevant and make dumb choices for their awards. Only this time, somehow, we're supposed to care about these dumb choices.

edited 27th Feb '16 8:59:02 AM by Aldo930

Gods of Egypt is tanking hard. Ha.

Do you want a serious answer? This article really says it well.

Ok, let see:

About the coen brother quote yeah, for what I understand their intention come fro m the idea that you dont put their race first since is not important...but damn they sound very racist about it.

"The taxi driver scene was just the one that always struck me as being even more egregious, because it was completely gratuitous on her part. Shooting the guy on the operating table, she at least had some sort of self-serving reason to do."

Really? for me is the other way around, shooting the guy is to get something in the more pragmatic way posible, shooting the guy table is just disposing of dead meat, is to show how cold and inhuman she is after what happen to her, at least the movie dosent a least request me rooting for her

"Will Smith is a mediocre actor who didn't get any attention for his by-the-numbers performance in Concussion and that's why Will Smith is mad at the Oscars."

I can see why people would said something about it, between the oscar being a sham for many and sort of "who win the best" many could just said "you are just mad you didnt win" or to want a quota of black winner to not saying anything

"So the (very) occasional movie that includes in major roles POC, LGBTQ people,that's pandering. But dozens upon dozens of movies (and comics, and gamesnote , and books) that feature the same square-jawed white guy because the executives are terrified of somehow alienating someone...that's not?"

Mmmmmm I think because many see it as money tactic to have minorities just to boost views, Is not cmon with clickbait articles for example, others fear the chararter focus would be in how a minority is without regard of her/his actual chararter, I call the "embasador efect" where a minority is there to represent all minorities in the movie but a white man is just.....a white man.

The movies that win the Oscar are not what we as a society value. They are the films that a bunch of old white guys think did the best.

If the Oscars were really tuned to what we wanted, Brokeback Mountain would have won in '06, for example. Nobody with any sense gives a damn about what they think is the Best Picture of the Year.

edited 27th Feb '16 9:13:02 AM by Aldo930

No, white people aren't just white people in film, okay? I don't know where you're getting that from, but that's not true. White people are the goddamn norm. They are the default. White people in lead roles have no problem transitioning from action movies to big budget franchises to Oscar bait arthouse movies and the like. Non-white actors don't have that same luxury or those same kinds of opportunities. Hell, they have trouble even finding work in the industry.

Do you know why so many movies recently with diverse casts have been making a lot of money recently? Because people like to see themselves represented in film. Diversity isn't a gimmick.

Except tons of people give a damn what the Oscars think. Just because you personally don't feel that way doesn't mean the Hollywood industry does as well.

edited 27th Feb '16 9:17:36 AM by higherbrainpattern

The Oscars is pretty much Hollywood's equivalent to a beauty pageant.

Exactly: It's an industry wide showcasing of the most "worthy" participants and has a lot of prestige attached to it, especially due to being long established. Thus, winners tend to get a lot of prestige as well.

It's an apt comparison.

edited 27th Feb '16 9:30:23 AM by higherbrainpattern

Except it IS gimmick, or it have been for a long time, that is why white people are the norm, because they are the standar than dosent have anything atach to them so you can make a "chararter".

Or to put it this way: white men act and minority men are, unless the movie focus in something in specifict, minority are not thought as fully chararter but as plot divace or something similar, is just now that hollywood is getting(VERY slowly) that minority chararter can be in fact.....chararters(I now, the shock)

It was a negative comparison.

I'm honestly surprised that somehow the Academy is racist now, as these were the same guys who made Crash the Best Picture a decade ago. How much changes in a decade, I guess.

Let's put it this way: I know it came from someone who had a beef with Will Smith in the past, but as someone rightly pointed out: Will Smith has money, he has his own production firm, he is part of the system. He could easily use said money to offer more high quality movies which might catch the attention of the academy. He is part of the system, and with him having a horse in the race, his wife should stay out of the discussion. It is dishonest. In addition, with all the scientology connections which might or not might work in the background of this one, there would be support for him no matter what the issue is.

The truth is: If you look at the top ten lists of this year, no matter if they come from the general audience or more serious critics, there are only two movies which turn up on some (not all) of them: Straight otta Compton and Creed. The movie in which Idris Elba was is so obscure, I have forgotten the name again. And apparently it was kind of questionable if it even could be selected? Either way, let's examine the other two. SOC is a movie which, sorry dear fans, has a limited appeal. It did really well, but it is simply not the kind of movie the academy usually goes for. Neither is Creed. The only reason it got some attention is that they had the feeling they needed to honour Silvester Stallone for the role of Rocky. But no matter how great Creed is, no Rocky sequel will ever have the same impact as the original Rocky. And no Rocky sequel ever got a lot of critical acclaim for exactly that reason.

In addition, in the years in which there were a lot of movies with black actors which did fall into what the voters usually like, they were nominated. And won.

And honestly, of all the "minorities" which barely get any Oscar attention, this is actually the one which gets the MOST attention. How many Asians, Native Americans or Latin Americans have ever won? How many woman have won outside of the categories which are "females only" from the get go?

In the end, though, the Oscars simply reflect the industry. You want more minority winners? You need more minorities behind the scenes. And if there are a number of offers with minorities every year and the academy keeps voting for white people, than you can complain. But as it is complaining only around the time of the award season comes of as sour grapes.

Context is important. In 2004, gay marriage wasn't even legal and the thought of gay or lesbian couples having the same kinds of rights as heterosexual couples was considered unthinkable. Thus, a movie about two white cowboy dudes having a gay romance was considered controversial and an "unsafe" choice for Oscar winner.

Straight Outta Compton is a biopic. And biopics are considered Oscar material (if not Oscar bait material). And I'm sorry, but Creed got a ton of acclaim, even more than the original Rocky.

edited 27th Feb '16 10:31:43 AM by higherbrainpattern

Yet the equivalent of a siren screaming "RACISM IS BAD" for ninety minutes somehow won that year.

Which is my point: the Oscars aren't about the real best films of the year; they're glorified beauty pageants for movies. Films don't win on being good; they win because they're made to appeal to the Academy. There's a reason Oscar Bait is a thing.

Whether the films that win at the Oscars are considered "really good or not" isn't the point. The point is that regardless of people's opinions on the Academy and the Oscars, the Oscars are still really influential and Oscar winners tend to get a leg up, so to speak, in regards to roles and other jobs. And other filmmakers see these Oscar winning films and go, "hey, this is the exact same kind of movie I need to make.

It's a really limiting glimpse of what films should be like.

edited 27th Feb '16 10:46:31 AM by higherbrainpattern