Academy Awards 2017 - Oscar Night: In the Pale Moonlight

[DanteGabriel]

3 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

1 minute ago, Risto said:

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.

 

Way to miss a point indeed. I'm responding to Killer Snark's whitesplaining of racial diversity in Hollywood. I thought the sarcasm in my responses to him would be hard to miss.

[Mladen]

1 minute ago, DanteGabriel said:

Way to miss a point indeed. I'm responding to Killer Snark's whitesplaining of racial diversity in Hollywood. I thought the sarcasm in my responses to him would be hard to miss.

Sorry... These days regarding this particular topic, sarcasm is easily missed. Plus, English not being my first language  

[Week]

1 hour ago, The Killer Snark said:

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.  

Folks, this discussion is not going to end up anywhere productive. 

[James Arryn]

Just now, The Killer Snark said:

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.

Racism = nothing? Or you're one of those who think racism is sorted? And if not, what solution would you suggest that wouldn't qualify as tokenism? Reagan Shrugged?

[The Killer Snark]

6 minutes ago, Week said:

Folks, this discussion is not going to end up anywhere productive. 

I'm not discussing positions for or against BLM. Sorry if people thought I was trying to steer the conversation in that direction. I intended to point out to Pepper that I'm watching that film anyway, regardless of my preconceived views on it. I was making an example of how it's best to actually watch a movie before judging it based on political bias.

 

 

[The Killer Snark]

5 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Racism = nothing? Or you're one of those who think racism is sorted? And if not, what solution would you suggest that wouldn't qualify as tokenism? Reagan Shrugged?

Of course racism isn't sorted, but there's racism on both sides of the white-black divide, and it is dangerous to think otherwise. Also, this divide was lower than it had ever been up until a decade or so ago. As for a solution that doesn't qualify as tokenism, the question is irrelevant. There's been more black representation this time round because the films involving black actors have apparently been better.

[DanteGabriel]

2 minutes ago, The Killer Snark said:

Of course racism isn't sorted, but there's racism on both sides of the white-black divide, and it is dangerous to think otherwise. Also, this divide was lower than it had ever been up until a decade or so ago. As for a solution that doesn't qualify as tokenism, the question is irrelevant. There's been more black representation this time round because the films involving black actors have apparently been better.

Dr. Pepper, you should have saved your powder. Here is your white whale.

[James Arryn]

Just now, The Killer Snark said:

Of course racism isn't sorted, but there's racism on both sides of the white-black divide, and it is dangerous to think otherwise. Also, this divide was lower than it had ever been up until a decade or so ago. As for a solution that doesn't qualify as tokenism, the question is irrelevant. There's been more black representation this time round because the films involving black actors have apparently been better.

1) Stating that racism can go both ways =/= to suggesting they're remotely comparable in scope, depth or effect...right? And if so, our attention on them ought not be equal. Right?

2) Why is the question irrelevant? 

3) How do you know the last line to be true? What rubric are you using?

[The Killer Snark]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

1) Stating that racism can go both ways =/= to suggesting they're remotely comparable in scope, depth or effect...right? And if so, our attention on them ought not be equal. Right?

2) Why is the question irrelevant? 

3) How do you know the last line to be true? What rubric are you using?

 

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

1) Stating that racism can go both ways =/= to suggesting they're remotely comparable in scope, depth or effect...right? And if so, our attention on them ought not be equal. Right?

2) Why is the question irrelevant? 

3) How do you know the last line to be true? What rubric are you using?

I have a yearly cinema pass. I'm going both on critical opinion and on my own experience. I try to watch as many movies as I can from as broad a spectrum possible each year.

[The Bear Who Knocks]

i dont know where this poc's role was stolen thing with la la land is coming from. The director's original choices before Gosling and Stone for the leads were Emma Watson and Miles Teller if i recall correctly.

[generalzod]

A few thoughts.

If you haven't SEEN a film, you cannot comment on its content, intent, critical merit or lack thereof.  Well you could, but it would be an uninformed boob or knee jerk zealot opinion.  And a knee jerk zealot opinion is unattractive on the right or on the left.  Whether its THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST or LA LA LAND. 

The voting involves ranking the movies 1-8 and aggregating the results on a point system.  Therefore its possible a movie that did not have the most first place votes won Best Picture.  Its another example of Hollywood bending over backwards to be fair. 

A black man and film critic for the Hollywood Reporter, commented on the racial questions of a Jazz story with white protagonists and a black "sellout" character, but was still able to judge and even enjoy La La Land on its merits. 

Hollywood, with rare exceptions, is the most liberal place attitude-wise you'd ever want to find.  So if it has shortcomings in terms of gender equality or racial or sexual inclusivity, that tells you how far off most of the rest of the planet is on those issues.  Yes they are often self-centered and narcissistic, but they haven't met a minority or a minority viewpoint for whom their heart didn't bleed. 

All of that Hollywood inclusivity doesn't include conservative viewpoints generally, but that's another story.

All the best picture nominees were very good, none great that I think will be spoken of years from now... But if there is one people watch years from now over and over, my money would be on La La Land.  

Jordan Horowitz, producer of La La Land, handled a painful and awkward situation BRILLIANTLY. In front of the entire world, he corrected a mistake he had nothing to do with and as best he could, let the world know that his good friends, the producers of MOONLIGHT, had won.

 

 

[The Killer Snark]

5 minutes ago, The Bear Who Knocks said:

i dont know where this poc's role was stolen thing with la la land is coming from. The director's original choices before Gosling and Stone for the leads were Emma Watson and Miles Teller if i recall correctly.

Never knew that. Emma Watson would have been a dreadful choice.

[Week]

15 minutes ago, generalzod said:

A few thoughts.

If you haven't SEEN a film, you cannot comment on its content, intent, critical merit or lack thereof.  Well you could, but it would be an uninformed boob or knee jerk zealot opinion.  

Fact or opinion? (hint: not a fact)

15 minutes ago, generalzod said:

A black man and film critic for the Hollywood Reporter, commented on the racial questions of a Jazz story with white protagonists and a black "sellout" character, but was still able to judge and even enjoy La La Land on its merits. 

Does he speak for all black people? Is the window to submit opinions from the black perspective still open or has it been closed.

Also note: the "black man and film critic" is NBA HoF-er Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. A very thoughtful writer - I would not categorize him as a film critic.

20 minutes ago, generalzod said:

Hollywood, with rare exceptions, is the most liberal place attitude-wise you'd ever want to find.  So if it has shortcomings in terms of gender equality or racial or sexual inclusivity, that tells you how far off most of the rest of the planet is on those issues.  Yes they are often self-centered and narcissistic, but they haven't met a minority or a minority viewpoint for whom their heart didn't bleed. 

Source? You seem to be conflating actors with the overall industry and production (i.e. moneyed interests) which I wouldn't agree with. Hollywood is not a leader in terms of gender, racial, or sexual equality or inclusivity - not even close.

24 minutes ago, generalzod said:

Jordan Horowitz, producer of La La Land, handled a painful and awkward situation BRILLIANTLY. In front of the entire world, he corrected a mistake he had nothing to do with and as best he could, let the world know that his good friends, the producers of MOONLIGHT, had won.

He was fine - good, even - but not really relevant here. Or perhaps relevant that you point to the white guy's BRILLIANT handling of an awkward situation without any comment on Barry Jenkins or anyone affiliated with Moonlight. 

[polishgenius]

Hmm. Killer Snark is really bad at poetry, and really bad at politics, but it turns out he's really good at racism and misogyny. Maybe you'll find the success you seek if you target your poems to the Breibart crowd eh chap.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

12 minutes ago, Week said:

Fact or opinion? (hint: not a fact)

To categorize the film as an example of "Casual White Supremacy" without having seen it is irresponsible at the very least. If you're going to make that extreme a claim you'd better cite specific examples, for which you'd have to have seen the film to make.

[Week]

8 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Hmm. Killer Snark is really bad at poetry, and really bad at politics, but it turns out he's really good at racism and misogyny. Maybe you'll find the success you seek if you target your poems to the Breibart crowd eh chap.

Also at investigating things like Pizzagate on twitter (purportedly, one of the first investigators of the child sex ring in the basement of a pizza joint with no basement). Turns out it was much ado about nothing (KS pro-tip).

[Week]

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

To categorize the film as an example of "Casual White Supremacy" without having seen it is irresponsible at the very least. If you're going to make that extreme a claim you'd better cite specific examples, for which you'd have to have seen the film to make.

Responding to this line more broadly (below). Not arguing with the point you made, although I appreciate why Dr P felt as she did and views the movie as she does. 

Quote

If you haven't SEEN a film, you cannot comment on its content, intent, critical merit or lack thereof.

 

[Dr. Pepper]

2 hours ago, Reny of Storms End said:

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'm very glad that you see that statement in a new light.

1 hour 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).

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?

I have no idea what this mod warning is, though I acknowledge that one likely exists and I just haven't seen it.  I also acknowledge that bringing in a grievance from an outside thread in my initial engagement with Manhole in this thread was ill-advised and set a certain tone in how the conversation went from there.  However, I think the manner in which he replied speaks for itself.  It's on me for having expected better from him and so judging him harsher than I would someone like, KS.

57 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Dr. Pepper, you should have saved your powder. Here is your white whale.

Meh,  I expect KS to argue a right wing conspiracy theory about The Birth of a Nation which rests on some idea that BLM is bad or something and totally ignore the actual controversy surrounding that film, namely that it was made by fucking rapists.  It just feels redundant at this point to respond to someone like him because he'll only respond with something like "But but but i saw a youtube video and obama was a demon" or some such nonsense.  

12 minutes ago, Week said:

Fact or opinion? (hint: not a fact)

Does he speak for all black people? Is the window to submit opinions from the black perspective still open or has it been closed.

Also note: the "black man and film critic" is NBA HoF-er Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. A very thoughtful writer - I would not categorize him as a film critic.

Source? You seem to be conflating actors with the overall industry and production (i.e. moneyed interests) which I wouldn't agree with. Hollywood is not a leader in terms of gender, racial, or sexual equality or inclusivity - not even close.

He was fine - good, even - but not really relevant here. Or perhaps relevant that you point to the white guy's BRILLIANT handling of an awkward situation without any comment on Barry Jenkins or anyone affiliated with Moonlight. 

QFT

9 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Hmm. Killer Snark is really bad at poetry, and really bad at politics, but it turns out he's really good at racism and misogyny. Maybe you'll find the success you seek if you target your poems to the Breibart crowd eh chap.

QFT

Breitbart also lost a lot of advertising dollars recently so their low standards are even lower. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

21 hours ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

[mod] OK, show's over regarding who is or isn't a Nazi. Debate on the awesomeness of Gladiator is still open, though. [/mod]

 

19 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I have no idea what this mod warning is, though I acknowledge that one likely exists and I just haven't seen it.  I also acknowledge that bringing in a grievance from an outside thread in my initial engagement with Manhole in this thread was ill-advised and set a certain tone in how the conversation went from there.  However, I think the manner in which he replied speaks for itself.  It's on me for having expected better from him and so judging him harsher than I would someone like, KS.

 And how exactly do you expect me to react to being called a Nazi sympathizer? Give me a fucking break. 

[Dr. Pepper]

11 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 

 And how exactly do you expect me to react to being called a Nazi sympathizer? Give me a fucking break. 

I dunno, if someone called me something that I disagree with or thought was wrong, I'd (1) ask how they came to that conclusion and (2) endeavor to stop being that thing I was called instead of doubling down on the rhetoric that lead to it.  I mean, seems pretty simple to me.  But, in my book it's worse to actually be something than to be called something.  For example, lots of people are bizarrely scared of being called racist instead of actually being, ya know, racist.  

It appears you are very adamant about discussing this despite your quoting a mod warning against it.  My inbox is always open should you wish to change your stripes or learn why I perceive your stripes as such.