Academy Awards 2017 - Oscar Night: In the Pale Moonlight

[Dr. Pepper]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Thank God for small favors.

In other words, "I dislike what you have to say about race and gender so I will confirm the points you make  (and then pretend that I didn't do that) so you'll shut up because disengaging is not something I'm willing to do when I can just make the queer voice of color be quiet."  

In case anyone's confused, this person right here is exactly why these conversations need to happen.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

In other words, "I dislike what you have to say about race and gender so I will confirm the points you make  (and then pretend that I didn't do that) so you'll shut up because disengaging is not something I'm willing to do when I can just make the queer voice of color be quiet."  

In case anyone's confused, this person right here is exactly why these conversations need to happen.

Um yeah, no. I'm not confirming anything you've said here. I was simply relieved at the thought that you might have finished your irrational ranting. 

[The Killer Snark]

You can't just boil objective criticism down to whether or not a movie suits one's agenda. I don't particularly want to watch last year's Birth of a Nation because I think it's a socially reckless whitewash of events where actual murder of innocents was committed, and because of the director's own ideological leanings, which suggest it really was meant as BLM riot propaganda. But I will still watch it, at some point, in order to cement or refute my own thoughts on that film before I've watched it. I also find the original film with that title obnoxiously racist and offensive, but it doesn't stop me from admiring it as a pivotal piece of early cinema. La La Land is neither socially reckless or offensive. Nor is Moonlight not getting the awards some people think it should have, or people screwing up the giving of the Best Picture Award.  

[DireWolfSpirit]

Well.....a lot to take in with so many thoughts youve all posted.

At this point Ive the feeling LA LA Land nor Moonlight would be very interesting viewing for me. I think Arrival, Hacksaw and Hell or Highwater all sound much more enjoyable for me.

Also still really pleased Casey Afleck won. I first came to appreciate his acting in the Jesse James movie, also the movie where he plays a rogue Western Deputy but ive forgotten the title of that movie. He's been great in everything ive seen him in. He has this uniquely calm delivery that seems like hes right in the room with you, its very effective imo. That said, I wouldve been fine if Denzel had won as well. (Note to self- Im about due for a Malcolm X rewatch, just love that movie)

As to Emma Stone winning, I wouldve given the Oscar to Natalie Portman for the Jackie O portrayal over Stone.

[The Killer Snark]

45 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Well.....a lot to take in with so many thoughts youve all posted.

At this point Ive the feeling LA LA Land nor Moonlight would be very interesting viewing for me. I think Arrival, Hacksaw and Hell or Highwater all sound much more enjoyable for me.

Also still really pleased Casey Afleck won. I first came to appreciate his acting in the Jesse James movie, also the movie where he plays a rogue Western Deputy but ive forgotten the title of that movie. He's been great in everything ive seen him in. He has this uniquely calm delivery that seems like hes right in the room with you, its very effective imo. That said, I wouldve been fine if Denzel had won as well. (Note to self- Im about due for a Malcolm X rewatch, just love that movie)

As to Emma Stone winning, I wouldve given the Oscar to Natalie Portman for the Jackie O portrayal over Stone.

I'm pleased that Casey Afleck won as well. He is excellent in that movie. I do, however, think that Manchester by the Sea is unnecessarily sluggishly paced and overlong, and wish it had more of a resolurion and stronger character emotional development. I'd urge people to check out the same director's Margaret first, which really is a masterpiece. In my opinion, the hype concerning MbtS has been conducted through critical sympathy with Margaret going almost unnoticed after spending years in post production limbo. Re the best actress category, I'd have given it to Kate Beckinsale for Love and Friendship, but she wasn't nominated, so far as I recall.

I'm just about to watch Moonlight on my computer now. I'll inform people what I think of it.

 

[Reny of Storms End]

1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said:

 "I don't see race or gender or sexuality" is a phrase that is horribly disgusting and terribly bigoted.

This is something I had never thought about, but upon reflection makes sense. It seems like an innocent enough phrase when the person making it is trying to convey they want to look at people based off their own actions as opposed to as a group or stereotype. It also unintentionally erases the experiences and advantages/disadvantages of a person's life and the group they were born into. Yet had you not articulated this just now I'm not sure I would have ever arrived at this same understanding. I can also understand why someone would feel confused about being called out for expressing such a sentiment if they did not know what you just typed out. 

I think something similar is happening, on both sides in this thread, concerning Moonlight/La La Land. It would never have occurred to me, as a white 30yr old, that in some interpretations a movie which expressed nostalgia for 30s/40s style movies could be rasicst. Because based off my experiences that nostalgia would not be over movies with all white casts, and showing the "good old days" of a more severe inequality. The nostalgia would be for childhood experiences watching 30s/40s movies with my grandparents or something similar. Because this is how I view nostalgia of that era I would assume the same of the director and producers of the film. At the same time if I was a LGBT POC, Moonlight could have much greater meaning to me then to someone who is not like me in appearance or sexuality. This would be a movie that finally was told from my perspective and would use people, and even a director, that could be me. Here's this unique movie that speaks to my life and is also earning acclaim and awards from everyone. This would be immensely important to me. So while I can say I believe nothing intentionally sinister was behind the Oscars gaffe that shouldn't dismish the equally true belief that for some people that gaffe was very hurtful and just another example of the disadvantages they face. 

I don't think either side in this is coming from a position of hatred towards the other. I think this is just a very serious issue and also very personal, so it is easy to zero in on any perceived slight and lock in your attitude right away.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Reny of Storms End said:

I don't think either side in this is coming from a position of hatred towards the other. I think this is just a very serious issue and also very personal, so it is easy to zero in on any perceived slight and lock in your attitude right away.

It gets personal when one poster repeatedly calls another poster a Nazi sympathizer or Nazi defender because that poster disagrees with their point of view. 

[Reny of Storms End]

6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

It gets personal when one poster repeatedly calls another poster a Nazi sympathizer or Nazi defender because that poster disagrees with their point of view. 

I would react just as you have if someone called me a Nazi sympathizer. I can understand why you would be angry and take it personally. I'm also saying I think initial misunderstandings led to it becoming so heated and personal. I am hopeful that maybe if both sides think about that instead of remaining focused on what was said based off frustration arising from a misconception we can get past it. 

[Jaxom 1974]

9 minutes ago, Reny of Storms End said:

I would react just as you have if someone called me a Nazi sympathizer. I can understand why you would be angry and take it personally. I'm also saying I think initial misunderstandings led to it becoming so heated and personal. I am hopeful that maybe if both sides think about that instead of remaining focused on what was said based off frustration arising from a misconception we can get past it. 

Sorry, Reny, but as I understand the current logic, you're apparently a Nazi sympathizer as well. There is apparently no room to see any other sides. 

[DanteGabriel]

I think my liberal SJW credentials are in reasonably good standing and I think Dr. Pepper makes a lot of good points about unconscious bias, the lack of diversity in Hollywood, and the smug blindness of the "I don't see color or gender or religion" arguments (almost always put forth by white people who are just darn tired of having had to think about other people's lives for more than two minutes).

That being said, it's wrong and shitty and counterproductive to keep calling Manhole a Nazi defender. Beyond ignoring a mod warning, what on earth are you thinking?

[Mladen]

3 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I think my liberal SJW credentials are in reasonably good standing and I think Dr. Pepper makes a lot of good points about unconscious bias, the lack of diversity in Hollywood, and the smug blindness of the "I don't see color or gender or religion" arguments (almost always put forth by white people who are just darn tired of having had to think about other people's lives for more than two minutes).

Oh come on... It is not smug blindness, it is just a distaste towards referring to a movie as "black movie". Yes, as Dr Pepper said, I may be idealistic, but in no way I am blind to the many issues of minorities, women and LGBTQ in Hollywood. 

Today, we are all happy. Moonlight won. Hollywood is diverse. Yaay. We had the same sentiment when "12 years a slave" won in 2014. We all now what happened in 2015 and 2016. Am I that wrong to see whether this is a true change or just Academy's reaction on what has been very loud criticism. 

At the end of the day, have those 3 Oscars - Moonlight, Davis and Ali really changed things?

[The Killer Snark]

Risto - On a social level, a movie can change nothing. All it can do is be either a good or bad movie. If we're tallking about 'diversity' in Hollywood, the only diversity we need is one of quality spread across theme and style. The reason for so much black representation this year is that black actors and actresses appeared in better movies than they did last year, and black producers and directors have stepped up to the plate more. That's all. I mean, some might dismiss my stance on this as I'm a white guy, but I really wish that identity politics would stop interfering with what films critics decide to push or not, or stop monitoring people's appreciation of films.

[DanteGabriel]

1 minute ago, The Killer Snark said:

The reason for so much black representation this year is that black actors and actresses appeared in better movies than they did last year, and black producers and directors have stepped up to the plate more. That's all.

So black people were less talented and lazier before this?

[The Killer Snark]

Just now, DanteGabriel said:

So black people were less talented and lazier before this?

No. It takes years to get a movie made. The films nominated this year around were still in production during the last Oscars. Apart from that, during the 'Oscars too white' fiasco earlier, people were either making the wrong choices in what they appeared in or their agents were doing so. You can act really well in a movie, but it won't get academy recognition if it's a film few people want to see. But as for the 'Will Smith should have won this' thing some time back, Will Smith was not even that good in the snubbed film that set the contention off that year.

[Mladen]

3 minutes ago, The Killer Snark said:

Risto - On a social level, a movie can change nothing. All it can do is be either a good or bad movie. If we're tallking about 'diversity' in Hollywood, the only diversity we need is one of quality spread across theme and style. The reason for so much black representation this year is that black actors and actresses appeared in better movies than they did last year, and black producers and directors have stepped up to the plate more. That's all. I mean, some might dismiss my stance on this as I'm a white guy, but I really wish that identity politics would stop interfering with what films critics decide to push or not, or stop monitoring people's appreciation of films.

I understand that, I was more referring to whether this can change something in Hollywood. 

The way I have seen the problem the last two years was simply that people were not paying attention when they should have. Oscars are the last line, the last phase in the year cycle. Simply, Oscars are the consequence, symptom of the disease, not the cause or disease itself. Therefore we can't speak solely about representation of POC on Oscars without taking a good look back at entire industry.

So, that is what I am asking. Is this a consequence of studios changing politics and finally putting money into projects that would involve minorities, or is it simply reactionism to the last year's criticism?

5 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

So black people were less talented and lazier before this?

Charlotte Rampling last year said a thing she should have never had. "Maybe they (black actors and actresses) didn't deserve to be nominated" And when I remember that Jada Pincket Smith was crying out because her hubby was not nominated for such a mediocre performance, I guess woman was right.

It is not about black people being lazy or less talented. After all, unless you are Meryl Streep, you don't get nominated every time. It is about studios making movies that, as Kate Winslet says, "get that sort of attention" And, simply, last year, there were not many of those movies. Whether we like it or not.

[DanteGabriel]

Okay, so black people in Hollywood started getting more talented and working harder a couple of years ago. Good to have the historical shortcomings of minority filmmakers explained for me.

[James Arryn]

3 minutes ago, The Killer Snark said:

No. It takes years to get a movie made. The films nominated this year around were still in production during the last Oscars. Apart from that, during the 'Oscars too white' fiasco earlier, people were either making the wrong choices in what they appeared in or their agents were doing so. You can act really well in a movie, but it won't get academy recognition if it's a film few people want to see. But as for the 'Will Smith should have won this' thing some time back, Will Smith was not even that good in the snubbed film that set the contention off that year.

What do you mean when you say 'fiasco'?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Thanks for the support guys. I appreciate it. 

[Mladen]

2 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Okay, so black people in Hollywood started getting more talented and working harder a couple of years ago. Good to have the historical shortcomings of minority filmmakers explained for me.

Jesus, way to miss a point...

No, they are not getting more talented. Just like Cate Blanchett is not getting more talented because she got 2 noms/1 win in three years. It is simply about the movies that are being made and actors being hired to be in them.

[The Killer Snark]

4 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

What do you mean when you say 'fiasco'?

I mean it was a big fuss over nothing kicked off by people with partisan interests, such as incidentally the wife of Will Smith. No one should get represented in an awards ceremony just because of tokenism. It's not fair to other people who could be nominated, and patronising to the minorities such tokenism claims to represent. There's a lot of black actors and actresses in Hollywood of exceptional ability. Not one had a leading role that year or appeared in anything other than a secondary role in a middling film, so far as I recall.