Which shows you don't fully appreciate film or understand bigotry. Incidentally Lee wouldn't be as relevant if Jackson, Snipes or Washington had any steady work anywhere else before the early nineties, but probably all their film credits before '95 came through him. That's probably the time frame at which this whole debate would have been more meaningful, but entertainment and marketable talent is so subjective and fragmented nowadays that it shouldn't be held to any demographic standards.
My only question is this, is it #OscarSoWhite or is it #OscarNoBlack? Would any of the people involved in this care about this issue if the only people who are ignored in the film industry are Asians and Latinos? How often do they even get the roles let alone getting nominated, especially for the Asian actors.
The numbers will say the actual issue is that Asians and Hispanics are underrepresented if you take the simplistic approach of comparing the entire racial demographics of the United States to the racial breakdown of representation in Hollywood. If you do that basic comparison, blacks are slightly overrepresented in Oscar wins over the past twenty years, and slightly underrepresented in overall speaking roles. I'd say it's pretty negligible whether blacks are over/under represented based on the numbers unless you really want to squabble over a 1-2% difference. If you take a more nuanced approach of looking at "directors" as opposed to actors, there's definitely a lot more evidence of blacks being underrepresented. If you look at the majority of people posting #oscarsowhite it's impossible to say everyone's reason for it. It does seem like the majority of the people that are the most vocal are black. Anyway, what I would love to see is a more sophisticated set of "control data" that is based on the racial breakdown of who actively pursues to become involved in the film industry. I think you could easily make a case that per capita, more Caucasians pursue jobs in theater and film than minorities for a variety of reasons. Some of which, I list below. Census data has suggested that barely 50% of Hispanic in the US would say they speak English well. A portion of the remaining 50% may have thick accents. Many Asians in America are first generation, who came over late in life and cannot speak English well. Asians typically face more pressure from a young age to go into professional jobs as opposed to the arts. Poverty could play a role in negatively affecting whether someone cares about going into drama/theater or certainly affect whether they have the opportunity to get a start...whether that's going to a high school that has a good drama department, paying for training, having the luxury to be exposed to theater arts as part of your upbringing, etc..
Since not as many Asians and Latinos tries to get into the film industry, it is fine to let them be under represented right? By that logic, if Asians tries harder to get into top tier schools, they should be represented more right? Why do Asians not try to get into athletics and Art? One of the reason is they do not believe they will succeed even if they try.
Yes. It is fine for the film industry to reflect the demographics of people who actually want and try to get into film. Yes. And they are represented more, right? Yes, that could be one of the many reasons. But it's a bit of a catch 22 if the other reasons Asians aren't trying to get into film at the same rate as Caucasians is for more extenuating circumstances like language barriers, or if they are more likely to be pushed in a professional path by their parents.
So when other groups are underrepresented or possibly unfairly treated, we gotta stop and think about all the rational, non-racist factors that might have contributed to the picture But when black people are underrepresented in a field, it's 100% systematic racism?
Exactly. Duh. Actually even if they aren't underrepresented it's still somehow 100% evidence of systemic racism.
Man for someone that doesn't care you sure continue to show up in this thread. http://www.bunchecenter.ucla.edu/wp...2/2015-Hollywood-Diversity-Report-2-25-15.pdf When are you going to read that?
Can you highlight the parts that you think are most pertinent? It's just not feasible to suggest someone read a 60 page article as an entrance to a discussion. I think the only useful piece of information from that document for this discussion about race in movies is that approx 17% of acting roles are minority and 83% are Caucasian. For film, I don't think the document even breaks down that 17% by race/ethnicity. Though it's likely that African Americans make up at least 10% of that 17%. The document also only uses the demographics of the US population as it's control data. This is definitely useful for showing how under/over represented differences races are in film. But where it gets shady is when you try to infer that "exclusion" is being applied based on that comparison. You're assuming that all races try to purse a career in theater/film at the same rate. Your also not factoring in the fact that Hollywood roles are generally open to the entire English-speaking world population (namely Australia and the UK).
No it is. Bobby keeps poking his head into this conversation and completely ignores what is thrown at him. This is once again, Bobby in most threads. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3yX_1gJ_51M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> I will answer your other question from above here. The useful bit of information is that minorities continue to be underrepresented when it comes to big roles, directing, and writing. I could quote the study but that would make this post a pretty big wall of text. Yes as it obviously should use that. Well you are inferring that they are not pursuing a career in theater and film with no evidence to back that up. You can't continue to use it as a basis of your argument I feel. You can say "They aren't pursuing it equally." well we don't really know that. There are tons of Hispanics and Asians that do speak English, hell there are roles to be had with accents, legit accents... Meanwhile most of hollywood is saying it's a problem, I think I have more to go on based on just that alone. You asked earlier in the thread before about whether blacks are pursuing it equal to whites. Now though since the release of the new study (The OP linked the older one any ways which I continued to tell people that 5% Hispanic speaking roles is just silly) and as it turns out, they surely must be. How then have they been able to invade Hollywood to have such a large voice in it, to be over-represented in acting roles (But as you point out, not directing...) so was it a fair assumption to make then? Is it a fair assumption to make now? You ask whether the hispanic or asian communities are pursuing it equally. This is actually hit on in the study and in the conclusion. The answer is that it's clear that diversity sells and can sell, what is wrong with Hollywood being more diverse? So it's on the industry to be more inclusive and to have more initiatives to get people involved. This is not a problem that just fixes itself.
I can't find any numbers on it, which I have admitted. I don't think I'm making a huge leap by suggesting groups of people who are much more likely to not speak English as a first language or are more likely to live in poverty would be less likely to pursue a career in Hollywood/Theatre. You can disagree with that and call it an off-the-wall assumption, but I'd say you were being disingenuous. I've also shown that white UK/Australian actors somehow are overrepresented when compared to white US actors per capita. Unless you want to make a case that there is discrimination against white US actors, it shows that there is precedence for a group of people to be more likely to get into theatre/film and become great actors than another group based on their background. Again, my whole line of argument isn't saying that there still wouldn't be some under representation after a more viable set of control data was used. But I am very sure that trying to apply the entire US demographics as a means to justify racial exclusion is happening is very incomplete and lazy. Not really. All this proves is that I am less likely to take someone at their word than you are...especially if you already lean in that direction. It does make me want to research the issue on an objective level, but that's it. Like usual. Need more data. Do blacks get into acting more than script writing or directing? Acting is a more superficial/visible profession where race, looks, and language proficiency matter for the role. Meanwhile, the race of the director or writer is not required by any script and can be more based on the available pool of talent. Heck, why do Hispanic directors seem to be overrepresented (at least in big Hollywood Oscar fodder pictures), but Hispanic actors are not? There's really no pattern there.
Well, blacks are far more likely to live in poverty and yet still have had a lot more success in Hollywood right? So how big is that a factor? It's not that hard becoming an actor in particular. It takes opportunity more than anything. It's not like you NEED years of schooling for it. Yes, but UK/Australian actors mostly are "White" actors. You also used the argument that maybe it has to do with who has global appeal and white actors do...well many of those UK/Australian actors are still white. Also I didn't say it was off the wall, just that there isn't much basis for it. I don't think so, not when the disparity is so large. This has been going on for years though. It's not just a 2015 and up thing. It's a waaaay back since the dawn of film/TV thing. These are also opinions of people that have experienced Hollywood first hand and are insiders. I wouldn't just dismiss their opinions on it especially since many of them say the same thing and throughout the years. Like usual. Need more data. Do blacks get into acting more than script writing or directing? Acting is a more superficial/visible profession where race, looks, and language proficiency matter for the role. Meanwhile, the race of the director or writer is not required by any script and can be more based on the available pool of talent. Heck, why do Hispanic directors seem to be overrepresented (at least in big Hollywood Oscar fodder pictures), but Hispanic actors are not? There's really no pattern there.[/QUOTE] How many minorities are turned away from acting, directing, or writing? Is there any data for that? Hispanic directors are not over-represented though. Out of the 4 nominations, 3 are from one guy. Innaratu. Besides, as I said before the Oscars isn't representative of the progress of the industry. That the industry gets more and more diverse as years go on thankfully...which I think proves the point here. Look, the fact is Hollywood has not always been inclusive. To say it has is to just ignore the entire history of race relations in the USA and to be delusional about history. I'm not saying you are on that side btw. Just this extra point I feel needs to be made. It wasn't inclusive for many many years. All people are arguing for is for more of it (Diversity). That's all and really that's it. I don't really get the counter argument? All people are saying is we are not there yet, is the counter argument that we should stop taking steps for it to be more inclusive? Maybe you are right, that there are not enough people from minority groups that want to get involved. Even if you are Hollywood only benefits from being more diverse which is why they have been taking steps to make it so and which is why it has gotten better year by year, which is why this is a question that Hollywood asks of itself. If there are not more Asians, Latinos, and Blacks then Hollywood should have more initiatives to get them involved.
Just for Jay I'm going to start a petition to get Tyler Perry a pity Oscar. I'm sure that would make him happy.
Bobby, this is my last response to you until you actually show you understand what this discussion is about. I can tell you are ignorant about it and I suggest you start with the study as it is a good summary of it. If you want more information on this topic though it's not very hard to find. Until then I know you'll continue to be delusional about it. You'll ignore any kind of numbers or facts. You'll make up a strawman to wack away at like you just did (Jay wants Tyler Perry to have a pity oscar!) which is funny to me because you are the person that brought up Tyler Perry. Not sure how many times I've said the Oscars are not representative of Hollywood...but of course you don't actually read posts that counter yours. So you just continue to do your drive by posting where you post the same argument over and over again (Tyler Perry Pity Oscar!) even when no one is arguing for anyone to get an Oscar. Have fun arguing against your own point I guess?
<iframe title="New York Times Video - Embed Player" width="480" height="321" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="true" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" id="nyt_video_player" src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/video/players/offsite/index.html?videoId=100000004227960"></iframe>
This discussion reminds me of this scene from Robert Townsend's movie Hollywood Shuffle - The Black Acting School: https://youtu.be/HoqmCwp95Q8 But seriously: How did a discussion on black actors in Hollywood turn into a discussion on Eugenics?
I think you keep trying to make it about something other than what it is, so that you can rail against it. But you're railing against something that isn't related to the points that JayGoogle is making.
