Jump to content

Academy Awards 2017 - Oscar Night: In the Pale Moonlight


Mladen

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

This film wasn't some poor performing romcom people barely saw.  It won awards throughout the circuit.  Forgive us for commenting on it.

 Just as soon as you provide me the same courtesy "Massah".

 

/For you to call it a celebration of "White Supremacy" without having bothered to see it speaks volumes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone mentioned upthread how the importance of Moonlight's win will now be forever entangled with La La Land.  That's disgusting to me and horrifying, and here I am contributing to it by arguing with certain types of people who celebrate the casual white supremacy of La La Land.

So, another celebratory post about Moonlight, the first LGBTQ film to win Best Picture.  This was a huge deal to our community.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Someone mentioned upthread how the importance of Moonlight's win will now be forever entangled with La La Land.  That's disgusting to me and horrifying, and here I am contributing to it by arguing with certain types of people who celebrate the casual white supremacy of La La Land.

So, another celebratory post about Moonlight, the first LGBTQ film to win Best Picture.  This was a huge deal to our community.  

I haven't seen the film or even read about it. How does it celebrate white supremacy? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

I would think injecting some kind of social commentary on the injustices that existed in the 30s and 40s would be a jarring out of place element in a frothy romantic comedy musical tribute to the frothy romantic musical comedies of that era. 


It didn't need to insert social commentary necessarily. Casting someone like, say, Donald Glover or Chiwetel Ejefoir as the lead would have removed a lot of the criticisms people are having of it without introducing any actual commentary and I doubt anyone would even have noticed. I mean, like Dr. Pepper I haven't seen it (yet) but I seriously doubt that in the nostalgia for the time, the fact that there were no black people on screen was the point.

Which isn't to say that they should have cast those people necessarily but I think the discussion on the subject should be accepted, not dismissed. Because on any individual film it doesn't seem like that big a deal, but taken over the whole industry it's certainly still an issue. It's why we had the whole 'white Oscars' furore last year in the first place. In this issue it's heightened by the presence of jazz and what from the article seems to be a leaning towards the white saviour trope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Relic said:

This is an interesting article about the perception of correlation between looks and intelligence. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3469615/Blinded-beauty-Good-looking-people-seen-intelligent-views-skewed-attractiveness-halo.html

"there were high correlations between perceptions of attractiveness and perceptions of intelligence, conscientiousness, and academic performance, likely reflecting the strength of the attractiveness halo, as well as the similarities among these perceived competence measures."

I'm not particularly married to my statement about Hollywood vapidness, and am open to being totally wrong despite my 35 years of life in America telling me otherwise. However, i don't really want to discuss that topic anymore, but i AM interested in learning more about your above statement, if you feel like pming me some links. 

 

Here's a research paper that shows a correlation between attractiveness and intelligence.  

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222558910_Intelligence_and_Physical_Attractiveness

As for Hollywood people, as a group they probably are about average in intelligence, with some smarter and some stupider, but with most around the mean.  The difference is that these people are celebrities and a subset of the media report on what they say, and/or people actively follow these peoples twitters and other media postings, which allows us to identify the really stupid ones.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Then she took a part in this movie.  It couldn't be clearer to me that she's aggressively hostile to WOC.  Whether or not La La Land was ever going to cast a black lead is beside the point.  I'm not a black woman so I would never consider taking a role that should go to a black woman.  That would be doubly true if the casting director indicates that they will not cast a black woman in a part that should go to her.  I wouldn't want to work with people like that.  It's very fair to identify Stone's hostility towards WOC because she purposely chose to audition for and accept the lead in this film, much like she purposely chose to audition for and accept leads in other films.  Sure, the casting is at fault too, but it's not like Stone is innocent here.

 

 

19 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

My particular problem as it relates to this thread is with Emma Stone, a person who can no longer deny intentionally choosing roles that are hostile to POC, especially WOC.

Why do believe the female lead of this film was supposed to be a WOC? Was this how the source material was originally written? I admit I may have totally missed this information, but nothing I have seen on La La Land has implied this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Art tells a certain story to the audience.  Sometimes the story it tells isn't what's intended.  Perhaps none of the artists involved in La La Land intended to tell a story that whitewashes history and celebrates white supremacy, but that's what plenty of people saw.  

My particular problem as it relates to this thread is with Emma Stone, a person who can no longer deny intentionally choosing roles that are hostile to POC, especially WOC.

It is her fault the casting director decided to go with her over a POC? Are you saying there need to be racial purity tests for roles that involve people of color?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, polishgenius said:


It didn't need to insert social commentary necessarily. Casting someone like, say, Donald Glover or Chiwetel Ejefoir as the lead would have removed a lot of the criticisms people are having of it without introducing any actual commentary and I doubt anyone would even have noticed. I mean, like Dr. Pepper I haven't seen it (yet) but I seriously doubt that in the nostalgia for the time, the fact that there were no black people on screen was the point.

Which isn't to say that they should have cast those people necessarily but I think the discussion on the subject should be accepted, not dismissed. Because on any individual film it doesn't seem like that big a deal, but taken over the whole industry it's certainly still an issue. It's why we had the whole 'white Oscars' furore last year in the first place. In this issue it's heightened by the presence of jazz and what from the article seems to be a leaning towards the white saviour trope.

Except he's not a white savior. Since he gets his bills paid by the black artists innovating on jazz. John Legend's characters only defining trait is to make it clear (nearly hamfistedly) that he isn't "saving" anything nor are people like Legend immoral or bankrupt, he just has his taste while others are doing just fine.

I don't mind having the discussion, except the Oscars seems to bring out this weird side of people (not so much that article which is pretty circumspect)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Someone mentioned upthread how the importance of Moonlight's win will now be forever entangled with La La Land.  That's disgusting to me and horrifying, and here I am contributing to it by arguing with certain types of people who celebrate the casual white supremacy of La La Land.

So, another celebratory post about Moonlight, the first LGBTQ film to win Best Picture.  This was a huge deal to our community.  

Casual white supremacy!? What are you even talking about. Please explain these extreme statements of yours. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, polishgenius said:


It didn't need to insert social commentary necessarily. Casting someone like, say, Donald Glover or Chiwetel Ejefoir as the lead would have removed a lot of the criticisms people are having of it without introducing any actual commentary and I doubt anyone would even have noticed. I mean, like Dr. Pepper I haven't seen it (yet) but I seriously doubt that in the nostalgia for the time, the fact that there were no black people on screen was the point.

Which isn't to say that they should have cast those people necessarily but I think the discussion on the subject should be accepted, not dismissed. Because on any individual film it doesn't seem like that big a deal, but taken over the whole industry it's certainly still an issue. It's why we had the whole 'white Oscars' furore last year in the first place. In this issue it's heightened by the presence of jazz and what from the article seems to be a leaning towards the white saviour trope.

I think there would be criticism no matter what happens because people are looking to point the finger at each individual movie and try to find an angle to rip it apart. If they'd cast Glover in the Gosling role they would shout 'oh just because hes black he likes jazz!' There is always something because outrage creates clicks. 

There is no reason taken on its own that La La Land should cast POC actors in its parts if there was no specific need to do so. Gosling and Stone are two of the worlds biggest stars, they bring in the money and they are good at what they do. 

Sure as a general trend there is a lack of roles for POC, and you'd hope that would change over time, but when that changes it should be seamlessly having diversity in all movies. It shouldn't be 'oh heres a black movie about black issues and heres a mexican movie about mexican issues'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It is her fault the casting director decided to go with her over a POC? Are you saying there need to be racial purity tests for roles that involve people of color?

What are you even talking about?  

A white person is not Asian, she is not Pacific Islander, she is not black.  Have you never heard about black face and why it's not ok?  

It's her fault for accepting the role, absolutely.  How is this so hard to comprehend?  Was a gun held to her head? I can hold some sympathy for those who have to accept a job out of desperation, because they need to feed their family.  But this is so clearly not the case here.  It's not difficult for me to hold condemnation and criticism towards the entire system.  For here, that includes writers, directors, casting, producers, and yes, the fucking actors who accepted the role.  

I have no idea what your 'racial purity' test means.  Casting a white person in the role of a POC is fucked up (well, the white supremacists and nazi defenders disagree).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Casual white supremacy!? What are you even talking about. Please explain these extreme statements of yours. 
 

Oh, gee. I don't even agree with Dr. Pepper completely myself, but she did give us that link back on page 7 that I have already copied once which seems to me to explain her statements:

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/01/the-unbearable-whiteness-of-la-la-land.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Casual white supremacy!? What are you even talking about. Please explain these extreme statements of yours. 
 

Extreme?  White supremacy is pretty much a fact of life.  How about you explain your confusion.  I've already posted a link.  I've suggested further education (it's called a google search).  No idea how much more I could possibly assist you.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

Yeah, Relic...what's your beef with Gladiator? Undoubtedly bad history, but as a movie it ticks  most boxes. 

@Relic hasn't been the same ever since he had to rock a man bun and make @Jaime L rubbery eggs in bed,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Oh, gee. I don't even agree with Dr. Pepper completely myself, but she did give us that link back on page 7 that I have already copied once which seems to me to explain her statements:

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/01/the-unbearable-whiteness-of-la-la-land.html

 

Nowhere in that article does it mention White Supremacy. It uses terms like Whitewashed, White nostaglia, and White fantasy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, polishgenius said:


It didn't need to insert social commentary necessarily. Casting someone like, say, Donald Glover or Chiwetel Ejefoir as the lead would have removed a lot of the criticisms people are having of it without introducing any actual commentary and I doubt anyone would even have noticed. I mean, like Dr. Pepper I haven't seen it (yet) but I seriously doubt that in the nostalgia for the time, the fact that there were no black people on screen was the point.

Which isn't to say that they should have cast those people necessarily but I think the discussion on the subject should be accepted, not dismissed. Because on any individual film it doesn't seem like that big a deal, but taken over the whole industry it's certainly still an issue. It's why we had the whole 'white Oscars' furore last year in the first place. In this issue it's heightened by the presence of jazz and what from the article seems to be a leaning towards the white saviour trope.

Then we would be having the conversation about the film is racist because the male [black] lead, ends up an unfulfilled loser compared to the white female lead who goes on to success, because it's always something.  Or if it were two black leads then the criticism would be that a frothy nostalgic tone doesn't make sense for POC leads because life was not like that for them in 30s and 40s....because it's always something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

What are you even talking about?  

A white person is not Asian, she is not Pacific Islander, she is not black.  Have you never heard about black face and why it's not ok?  

It's her fault for accepting the role, absolutely.  How is this so hard to comprehend?  Was a gun held to her head? I can hold some sympathy for those who have to accept a job out of desperation, because they need to feed their family.  But this is so clearly not the case here.  It's not difficult for me to hold condemnation and criticism towards the entire system.  For here, that includes writers, directors, casting, producers, and yes, the fucking actors who accepted the role.  

I have no idea what your 'racial purity' test means.  Casting a white person in the role of a POC is fucked up (well, the white supremacists and nazi defenders disagree).  

I'm pretty sure Sir Scot was addressing your idea that the lead female role in La La Land was supposed to be a WOC. After all the post he responded to was about La La Land and how Stone's accepting a role in it proved she was actively hostile to POC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Nowhere in that article does it mention White Supremacy. It uses terms like Whitewashed, White nostaglia, and White fantasy. 

Oh come on. "White supremacy" may be a bit stronger than those terms, but certainly one should be able to see from the article where Dr. Pepper gets her views on this from. It would seem to me that "White nostalgia" and "White fantasy" would be very much related to White Supremacy, and, as I said  before, I don't even totally agree with the article. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...