CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Oscar Voters Are Older, Whiter, and Maler Than You Thought
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Oscar Voters Are Older, Whiter, and Maler Than You Thought

post #1 of 7
2/20/12 at 11:22am
Thread Starter 

Interesting article.

 

I think I can see now why Ghandi won over E.T. and Dances With Wolves won over Goodfellas.

 

I was never under the illusion that the oscars were a fair and balanced contest, but I never realized how unbelievably skewed the makeup of the voters are.  


Edited by Ambler - 2/20/12 at 1:22pm
Reply
post #2 of 7
2/20/12 at 11:45am

In other news, the NAACP is, to everyone consternation, chock full 'o negras.

 

The age thing is the part that really chaps my ass, though. The LA Times article linked there touched on something huge about Social Network not taking home more gold because Academy voters just didn't relate to it, same goes for Alfre Woodard's quote about Shame. The awards themselves maintain negative credibility when you're dealing with a predominantly socially conservative generation (and after them, a socially liberal generation that went right back to being conservative the hair second they had kids) presented with films that are becoming less and less so.

 

Whether they're white or not, you get younger Hollywood on the board, you will see the change.

Reply
post #3 of 7
2/20/12 at 1:05pm

There's the story in DOWN AND DIRTY PICTURES that I always think of when stuff like this gets brought up. In the book, it's said that the whole reason Roberto Benigni won over Tom Hanks in 1998 was that Harvey Weinstein put him on the dinner circuit -- sending him to nursing homes, dinners, appealing to the same type of demographic this article reveals. The story is that Benigni won for those dinners, not for the actual movie. 

 

I have a feeling Weinstein's doing the same thing with Jean Dujardin.

Reply
post #4 of 7
2/20/12 at 1:21pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Clark View Post

In other news, the NAACP is, to everyone consternation, chock full 'o negras.

 

The age thing is the part that really chaps my ass, though. The LA Times article linked there touched on something huge about Social Network not taking home more gold because Academy voters just didn't relate to it, same goes for Alfre Woodard's quote about Shame. The awards themselves maintain negative credibility when you're dealing with a predominantly socially conservative generation (and after them, a socially liberal generation that went right back to being conservative the hair second they had kids) presented with films that are becoming less and less so.

 

Whether they're white or not, you get younger Hollywood on the board, you will see the change.


Yes.  I understand the awards are peer based, but if you're going to televise it as a world event, it would make more sense to me for the voting to be more representative of the large bucket of cultures, ages, races and genders who actually watch the damn show. 

 

Reply
post #5 of 7
2/20/12 at 1:22pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard View Post

There's the story in DOWN AND DIRTY PICTURES that I always think of when stuff like this gets brought up. In the book, it's said that the whole reason Roberto Benigni won over Tom Hanks in 1998 was that Harvey Weinstein put him on the dinner circuit -- sending him to nursing homes, dinners, appealing to the same type of demographic this article reveals. The story is that Benigni won for those dinners, not for the actual movie. 

 

I have a feeling Weinstein's doing the same thing with Jean Dujardin.

 

Oh yes, I remember that segment in the book.  It's generally how most awards are won...ass kissing to the voting bracket.  
 

 

Reply
post #6 of 7
2/20/12 at 5:42pm

It bums me knowing that Bernie Casey resigned from the Academy in protest, because 1) No one cares if Bernie Casey protests, 2) Bernie Casey should be on every committee, because 3) Bernie Casey is the shit.

Reply
post #7 of 7
2/21/12 at 5:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

Interesting article.

 

I think I can see now why Ghandi won over E.T. and Dances With Wolves won over Goodfellas.

 

I was never under the illusion that the oscars were a fair and balanced contest, but I never realized how unbelievably skewed the makeup of the voters are.  


I can only speak for myself but even though I wasn't even close to having entered my teens when I saw Gandhi in the cinema, I thought it was a fantastic film on its own intrinsic merits and deserving of all the awards it won.

 

Mind you, I do have two Sri Lankan parents. 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Oscar Voters Are Older, Whiter, and Maler Than You Thought