|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
99.243.250.41
In Reply to: RE: My problem with "Everything..." isn't that it's Woke posted by RGA on March 15, 2023 at 17:26:18
Jamie Lee Curtis' win is neither here-nor-there in terms of the diversity aspect. I didn't see anything especially remarkable about her performance. Curtis is the 1000th Best Supporting performer to win mainly on account of the context of the file in which s/he was performing.
In the first instance the diversity aspect was something raised by other people that I picked up on it given I considered the film mediocre. But even if celebration of diversity had nothing ultimately to do with Everthing's win that doesn't make me a racist -- maybe not "Woke" enough I grant you.
People who think I'm a racist can just Eff Off. FWIW I'll point out that my own family is White-Asian multiracial.
Dmitri Shostakovich
Follow Ups:
Well, I agree - but even a non-racist can make the occasional "racist comment" without even realizing it - the whole world has gotten very touchy over this stuff. I don't for a second think you're a racist. Granted I don't know you other than the various forums over the years but you seem to be a stand-up guy to me.
Affirmative Action was an attempt (eesh) to try and level the playing field for minorities - to force racist white business owners to hire a certain percentage of minorities to help give these people "better employment."
It makes initial sense but it also creates animosity within the rest of the workforce when people don't know why this person was hired. Are they qualified or are they just the token hire? I just watched an episode of Dexter and
Masuka: Hey Morgan. You wanna see something swell? Come a little closer. Deb: And the token has spoken.
See this is funny. Fat chance it gets on tv now or someone would bitch and complain about the line.
It's funny because everyone is in on the joke including Masuka. Of course, he's brilliant at his job but he also knows he is the token.
With Academy Voting you just don't know. The joke used to be that actors and others would give their voting ballot to their secretaries to fill in.
Many of them probably choose their friends or people they work with. Curtis has been around forever and never won anything - she may have many friends who voted for her. Cate Blanchett has already won 2 Academy Awards. Maybe people felt that Cate is so good she will probably win another one. Yeoh may not get another chance because her race and age may limit her opportunities in the future. Those decisions by studios are not even racist - they're business choices based on market research as to who will come to the movie based on who the leads are.
Ultimately it comes down to thinking about this differently. If Hyopothetically, you saw this movie and felt it was a Masterpiece and by far the best movie on this list then you probably don't entertain any notion that it "only Won to satisfy diversity virtue signalling"
But because you found it wanting or another film to be better, then now it "only Won to satisfy diversity virtue signalling"
We probably all do it. I know I did it when Gandhi beat E.T. I was like of course they have to pick Gandhi because it's a serious movie and Hollywood absolutely hates Spielberg, a Jew.
To be fair, I was something like 10 years old at the time.
I suppose I have a different perspective than you. I am in an interracial marriage and I have worked in Hong Kong for 12 years now as the only "white guy" here. I am the token hire.
So for example, my speculating the Everything won at least in part because the Academy want to acknowledge diversity is considered racist ... despite that acknowledging diversity isn't a bad thing per se , and that it might be true.I have other attitudes that will be construed as racist by many -- especially in this 'Woke' age -- for example:
- My attitude to "affirmative action" was always ambivalent. (I'm old enough to remember when it was a new thing.) Certainly I always believed that selection of employees ought to be on a purely objective basis, i.e. qualifications , not on racial/cultural/religious grounds one way or the other. I have personally, as a supervisor, hired people on that basis included several people-of-color. If there was a time for affirmative action I think that time is passing especially here in Canada. The high level of immigration we've had for many years now pretty much much ensures that a high proportion of candidates presenting themselves for any job are likely to be "racialized", (or Muslim, etc. ). One simply cannot be a bigot and expect to make the best hire.
- I'm bemused by the heavy promotion of diversity in Canadian TV ads. So my observation is that 2/3 of ads at least show multi-racial marriages and children, and/or gender-diverse people or couples. Sorry, but it's certainly "virtue signaling" by the advertisers. What is ironic is that Blacks are heavily over represented in these ads, i.e. away above the proportion of the Black population in Canada, (which is much lower than in the USA). At the same time it seems to me that one Canadian minority which is significantly under represented in TV ads and that's our indigenous populations. First Nations, Inuit, and Metis folks comprise at least 3X as many people in Canada as do Blacks but they hardly ever turn up in ads.
- The term "racialized" has become quite prevalent around here, most noticeably on CBC radio and television. It has mostly displaced "visible minority" and "people of color". Grammatically the use of the adjective-made-verb made adjective is absurd. In any case it's just another euphemism for non-White , and I'm not sure whose sensibilities it's supposed to sooth. I'd be fine with just using "non-White", after all it's accurate.
I've got laugh at the suggestion of prejudice against Jews in Hollywood. That's kinda rich.
As for Ghandi versus E.T. that was a hard call. Like Everthing versus All Quiet , two very different types of movies. In the former case, neither flick had any diversity considerations. Unlike the 1986 miniseries, Lord Mountbatten - The Last Viceroy where Pandit Nehru was played by Ian Richardson in black-face, LOL.
... WOW, but now I'm wondering whether any of the E.T. kids were Black? I think maybe not: that would never pass today, (and rightly so I suppose).
Dmitri Shostakovich
Edits: 03/17/23 03/17/23 03/17/23
Feanor - thanks for the excellent thoughtful post.
Hollywood like Starbucks is a business. A large part of their sales comes down to public perception and they don't want to get cancelled. Starbucks doesn't care at all about plastic or paper straws - they use paper straws to be "seen as green" hoping not to lose their liberal customers.
I could be wrong but I suspect Starbucks mostly caters to Democrats and Liberals as they tend to be located in cities and even in red states - the major cities vote liberal/democrat. So Starbucks tends to cater to their left-wing base of customers. (Albeit Union Busting has taken some of their base away).
With Hollywood and the BBC and probably the CBC and the arts in general - you mostly have liberal types entering those professions, the Theater and the Arts.
The reality is that in the theatre world, people are exposed to more racially diverse people and certainly more exposed to members of the LGTBQ+ - people who don't make it in the arts often become agents or perhaps go into directing or producing or executive roles. They then hire their friends when they can.
So I think what you see is this "subset of the population" put on TV. So you watch a TV show and the representation is skewed to the population of the "arts" world and not the representation of the population of the country.
Ideally, people would be colour-blind and we would just hire people based on ability but it doesn't happen. Hiring managers have to consider how that person will work within the office/group. They may hire a slightly less skilled person who is easy to get along with than the superior intellectual candidate who is a douche.
When I applied for the teaching job here in Hong Kong I had to write a 20-minute timed essay. Then had a 20-minute interview with two Hong Kong Principals for Elementary School and High School (my training is mainly in Elementary school). My friend who has more experience and taught in BC for several years failed the interview.
Why? Because they would ask him a question - he'd answer and then they would press him on it and he would push back that he already answered the question or that his answer was correct.
Example: "How do you know when a child has understood the reading text?" Answer: Ask the students reading comprehension questions to ensure they know the characters, plot, theme etc.
"But how do you really know?"
Answer: have the students make a comic strip of the story they just read to see how much the student can remember from the text.
"But how do you really know?"
My friend would get irritated by this - I know him. Me? I keep trying to answer this question in a different way or I would simply say that I am not sure how to answer that question and admit I don't have all the answers and would hope to learn from my fellow colleagues. That is what they wanted I suspect - teachers work as a team and they don't want the foreigner to come in and tell them what they should be doing. 80 people were interviewed across Canada. They hired 11. I was one of them.
To me, they most want the people they figure won't be a "problem" and not necessarily the "best" candidate. LOL - cause it sure ain't me - I am an English teacher with pretty atrocious grammar and spelling. But that doesn't matter - there are spell checks and grammar checks - but not so much "easy to get along with amiable" checks.
Perhaps in Hollywood, they feel if people see more minorities and homosexuals on their tv screens audiences will be more exposed to them and thus less fearful of them. Fear is often a big driver of racism.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: