“Oscar voters overwhelmingly white, male” — and hundreds haven’t made a movie in decades
Breaking news from the Department of Obvious Observations. The LATimes has dug deep and found the facts to back up what we’ve known for years: ”Oscar voters overwhelmingly white, male. Media age is 62.
A Los Angeles Times study found that academy voters are markedly less diverse than the moviegoing public, and even more monolithic than many in the film industry may suspect. Oscar voters are nearly 94% Caucasian and 77% male, The Times found. Blacks are about 2% of the academy, and Latinos are less than 2%.
Oscar voters have a median age of 62, the study showed. People younger than 50 constitute just 14% of the membership.
(In the real world, roughly 78% of the US population is younger than 50.)
Nearly 50% of the academy’s actors have appeared on screen in the last two years. But membership is generally for life, and hundreds of academy voters haven’t worked on a movie in decades.
To conduct the study, Times reporters spoke with thousands of academy members and their representatives — and reviewed academy publications, resumes and biographies — to confirm the identities of more than 5,100 voters — more than 89% of the voting members. Those interviews revealed varying opinions about the academy’s race, sex and age breakdown: Some members see it simply as a mirror of hiring patterns in Hollywood, while others say it reflects the group’s mission to recognize achievement rather than promote diversity. Many said the academy should be much more representative.
The Times found that some of the academy’s 15 branches are almost exclusively white and male. Caucasians currently make up 90% or more of every academy branch except actors, whose roster is 88% white. The academy’s executive branch is 98% white, as is its writers branch.
Men compose more than 90% of five branches, including cinematography and visual effects. Of the academy’s 43-member board of governors, six are women; public relations executive Cheryl Boone Isaacs is the sole person of color.
No estimate of what percent of the AMPAS are among the wealthiest 1% of the US, but safe to assume, all of them. It’s a lengthy article, so you can visit the LAT to read the rest.
“Is most of commercial narrative filmmaking the product of mostly white men? Sadly, the answer is yes,” said Alexander Payne, the director and co-writer of best picture nominee “The Descendants” who belongs to the director branch.
Frank Pierson, a former academy president who won an Oscar for original screenplay for “Dog Day Afternoon” in 1976, said merit is the primary criterion for membership.
“I don’t see any reason why the academy should represent the entire American population. That’s what the People’s Choice Awards are for,” said Pierson, who still serves on the board of governors. “We represent the professional filmmakers, and if that doesn’t reflect the general population, so be it.”
“if that doesn’t reflect the general population, so be it.”
Nice. So, just like the US Senate. And whose interests does Congress reflact? Not mine.
141 Comments
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- Tweets at 10:54 AM, February 19 from Seattle - [...] we’ve known for years: ”Oscar voters overwhelmingly white, male. Media age is 62. ● More: awardsdaily.com How To Send Any ...
- Oscar Index: And the Winners Are…* | NewsandShowbiz.com - [...] to say? The die was cast long ago, and unless all those old-ass, inactive white dudes who apparently make ...
- Oscar Index: And the Winners Are…* | Movies and News - [...] to say? The die was cast long ago, and unless all those old-ass, inactive white dudes who apparently make ...
- Truth Uncovered « PopMongoose - [...] 2/20: Awards Daily’s Ryan Adams posted an article last night about these findings which I missed due to the ...
- Do the Oscars Matter? | robertgrahamlarkin - [...] The Academy itself remains a dusty and arcane part of the Hollywood institution. Staffed by a hilariously un-diverse group ...
- David Cronenberg on Art | mwpm - [...] my statistics on the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences: http://www.awardsdaily.com/2012/02/oscar-voters-overwhelmingly-white-male-and-many-havent-been-near-...] Like this:LikeBe the first to like this ...
- Saving Face: A Win for Women at the Academy Awards - [...] is right to point out that, on its own, a golden statue bestowed by a group of elderly white ...
Leave a Comment
Tracker Pages
Recently on AD
Follow Us!
Tags
Gallery
Will make Davis and Spencer’s wins that much more of a feat.
I am telling you. Spencer is a run away winner(even though she doesn’t deserve it) but McCarthy could be the upset with her fart humor movie. Streep or Williams seems better to win than Davis. Old farts voting for a stoic black maid or a ball busting politician or a screen siren….hmm, I’d say the maid finishes last.
“if that doesn’t reflect the general population, so be it.”
Well, yes — as long as we remember why it’s that way and try to change that.
Besides the demographic composition of AMPAS, what I’m wondering is this: Of those who haven’t worked on a film in years and years, how many of them bother to vote?
I keep saying that there should be a limit on membership. 10 years sounds good. At the end of the ten years,they need to requalify.
So – where do we meet once we have gathered our rakes and torches? Median age is 62? Hell, I can beat half of them down with my walker!
“At the end of the ten years,they need to requalify.”
Like a driving test? Sample questions:
1. Did you need help getting into your seat?
2. Did you stay awake for the entire movie?
3. Please recount what it was about in the space below…
Of those who haven’t worked on a film in years and years, how many of them bother to vote?
That’s a valid question, Pierre de Plume. I wish we knew.
But here’s what I suspect. It’s the active working members who have less time to cuddle up in their slankets with 40 screeners to plow through.
Busy young Academy members might be more concerned about actually making movies than fiddling around with ballots.
I’m sure there must hundreds of retired filmmakers whose only lifeline to the industry is their hoary Academy connection, so they would cling to their ballot duties as reassurance that they’re still important.
Though you’re absolutely right about the issue of apathy and even competence. I don’t feel it’s cruel to wonder how many AMPAS members in their 80s and 90s are capable of staying awake through a movie. And how many octogenarian members just can’t stand to watch new movies at all?
I’d be very surprised if the percentage of male members of the cinematography branch was any lower than 97%.
The good news, though, is that I’ve done my own research, and 99% of Academy members are so old they’ll be dead by next year
Recent members: Dakota Fanning, Saoirse Ronan, Scarlett Johansson, Ryan Reynolds, Ryan Gosling, Jet Li, Gerard Butler, Jennifer Aniston, Russell Brand, Bradley Cooper, Peter Dinklage, Jesse Eisenberg, Jennifer Garner, Beyonce Knowles, Mila Kunis, Jennifer Lawrence, Rooney Mara (before Dragon Tattoo), Ellen Page, Mia Wasikowska, Anna Kendrick, Carey Mulligan, Jeremy Renner, Zoe Saldana, Adam Sandler, Gabourey Sidibe, Peter Sarsgaard, Sacha Baron Cohen, Michelle Williams, Paul Rudd, Seth Rogen, Emily Blunt, Casey Affleck, Michael Cera, Viola Davis, James Franco, Anne Hathaway ,Taraji P. Henson, Emile Hirsch, Hugh Jackman, Jane Lynch, James McAvoy, Jeffrey Wright, Chiwetel Ejiofor etc. etc.
So don’t tell me they are not trying.
These are numbers that I’ve always suspected but to see it in black and white (with pie charts) is breath taking! Just wow.
Kemal, they’re not trying.
These days, rewarding people on merit does tend to result in more women, more non-Caucasians and more young people becoming members than in the past. But trying to even things out would require either a huge influx of new members (many of whom, presumably, wouldn’t be particularly deserved of their membership) or kicking lots of existing members out.
I second the call for a cap on membership – 10 years does sound appropriate.
Paddy, it will take time, they can not kill off existing members.
However, I have to be honest. Fields like Cinematography, Editing, Sound, Visual Effects will be white male heavy. You cannot change that. How many females or non-whites are there in Civil or Mechanical Engineering? I think people should face up some realities here.
LOL, those numbers…..wow.
It certainly puts a lot in perspective. I think seeing this makes wins like RotK’s Oscar sweep even more miraculous (made possible only thanks to the age of Tolkien’s books, I’m sure – many voters probably read them when they were younger).
Hell, I guess TSN never stood a chance last year.
And, on top of this, how many actually see the nominated films?
I had thought that one way people became a member of the Academy was once they had been nominated. Why did it take so long for Ellen Page, Viola Davis, Anne Hathaway …? I don’t know much about the technical branches.
Kemal,
The Academy has always invited members who were in their 20s and 30s (especially actors)
Angie Dickinson was hot young thing in 1960 — she was fresh blood in the decade when the Academy still had members who had worked in silent films. But Angie Dickinson is 82 now.
And for all we know, she might have rockin taste in movies — but let’s not kid ourselves that all the AMPAS actresses who were born in 1931 have stayed as hip as Ms Dickinson. If they were, we’d know more of their names. Many have slid into oblivion long ago.
Paddy, it will take time, they can not kill off existing members.
Mere passage of time can’t fix it.
Naturally, 40 years from now, all the current 65-yr-old actors will be gone (RIP, Bruce Willis). But then, 40 years from now, Michael Cera will be 63.
Michael Cera is an ok guy. Nothing against him (fact: he stayed in high school till 9th grade… so… bravo!) But Michael Cera is not somebody I’d trust to name the best 10 movies of the year, even now. I shudder to think what kind of movies he’ll be into when he’s 63.
Kemal, it won’t take time to bring that average age down, though. As older members die off, younger ones will get older and take their place. Hopefully, we’ll get to the stage wherein few or no Academy members haven’t been nominated, but the average age may remain around 62. Life expectancies get higher each year too, don’t they?
Started writing that before Ryan posted, oops!
That 14% under 50 number, especially, is mind boggling. I guess I always knew it was like that, but to actually see that confirmed is just “wow”.
Considering how many no longer work in the industry, it’s really no wonder we see the dull races we see each year. Why should they bother being relevant? There’s no reason for them to care.
The fact that academy voters are so overwhelmingly represented by late-age white males is troubling to me, but I’m struggling to find the right words to express a deeper understanding of why.
Gender discrimination, Racial discrimination, Discrimination based on Sexual Orientation …
Personally, I think they should tear the whole thing down and reconstitute the membership so it’s representative of our culture today. The image the academy projects with all these old guys is an ugly part of America’s past.
I’m probably making no sense but I’m just really disgusted by this … ugh
Duh, of course they are older and whiter…..membership is for life and should be!
So it will be become more integrated as time passes.
And, as someone already said….the young ones now will be the old ones of tomorrow. Should we kick them out because they are old? And who cares if they haven’t made a movie in decades. You think we should discount their contribution because they are retired? Ageism can be just as bad a racism and sexism.
The 50 – 70′s group are probably much better judges of what a good movie is then the young people who grew up watching Lizzie Mcguire on T.V. and most of which haven’t even SEEN movies like Citizen Kane, or have any real knowledge of actors like Brando.
This is the kind of thinking that will ruin the academy, and will and is making it more like the people’s choice awards. Having stricter criteria for membership….like years experience, or number of films made? Work experience. That will help the Academy naturally evolve into something better….and save us from the “good buddy” system they have now.
Why is this so surprising? It looks like the Senate and Congress–and they are elected by you Americans.
Could someone clarify, doesn’t one need to have at least one nomination to be invited by that branch to join?
Scenario: What happens when an actor who’s already in the acting branch, becomes a director? Does he (I’m conveniently dropping the she based on statistics) wait to be invited to join the director’s branch? I guess so (my 2 skypers in specialized technical fields so no crossover)?
It’s the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. It’s a private organization that does some work for film preservation and gives out awards to its favorite films.
WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF AMERICAN DEMOGRAPHICS
Wow, Fassbender never stood a chance.
Hmmm…I’m white, male, and I haven’t made a movie in decades…
Pierson’s Dog Day Afternoon script was, in my mind, one of the 10 greatest ever written. I’m sorry his comments above weren’t as inspired.
The Academy doesn’t have to be representative of American audiences, but it should be representative of the filmmakers and filmmaking of the modern age.
Of course having these demographics does not prove sexism or racism or ageism.
My main issue is that so many don’t SEE the movies. I think they should have to see them to vote in that category like they do in foreign film
“It’s the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. It’s a private organization that does some work for film preservation and gives out awards to its favorite films.
WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF AMERICAN DEMOGRAPHICS”
Totally agree, and you are so spot on. One of the very few rational comments here.
Conversation Overheard at Oscar Ballot Completion Exercise and Brunch at the Stargazers Home
Buddy: “I guess we have to fill these out again” (sighs)
Milton: “Yes, and this time pay attention – last year you voted for Black Swan because you thought it was one of those Walt Disney True Life Adventures. It didn’t have no swans in it at all, just that crazy little Portman girl dancing around, sprouting wings.”
Buddy: “I remember making those Disney pictures – had to kill a lot of lemmings for one of them. What have we got on this year’s menu?”
Milton: ” Well, there’s The Help. That sounds pretty good – we were always happy with ours.”
Buddy: “Yeah, true enough, give a couple of the ladies some awards, but not the movie – don’t want to encourage anything, y’know.”
Milton: “How about Moneyball? You like baseball.”
Buddy: “That Pitt kid already has everything – good looks , loads of money, Voight’s daughter, a passel of kids.”
Milton: “So that would take care of Clooney’s picture, then. Same reason, except for Voight’s daughter and the kids – he’s after everybody else’s daughter.” (both snicker)
Buddy: “Let’s go with The Artist, then. Some of that fast editing in those other pictures makes me dizzy” (both nod in agreement and tick the box)
Milton: “Best Actor…did I ever tell you what Garbo said to me?”
Buddy: “‘Get that thing out of my face?’” (both roar, wheezily)
Milton: “Now I lost my train of thought – you just reminded me that someone should send that nice German kid – Fassie-something – a telegram. We won’t tolerate that kind of behaviour.”
Buddy: “He was raised in Ireland, not Germany.”
Milton: “Oh,well, that explains it. Regardless, I don’t want to be reminded what it looked liked before it was wrapped in Depends all day”
Buddy: “Oh, look, Meryl’s on there again! Poor dear just can’t get it right. And there’s Glenn – Meryl doesn’t look so bad now, does she? Whatever happened to the real movie stars?”
Milton: “Did I ever tell you what Garbo said to me?” (fadeout)
HA! And I got chastised on this site for calling AMPAS “a bunch of old foggies who are disconnected from the mainstream and modern movie-making?” I think the statistics you’ve put forth on this site proves my point.
I believe it was worse, though, in the 60s, where the median age was somewhere around 70. That explains why “Oliver” won in 1968, and shows how shocking the 1969 win truly was: “Midnight Cowboy”.
“Paddy, it will take time, they can not kill off existing members.”
Maybe we can speed up the process. Throw them all in an arena and make them fight to the death, Hunger Games/Death Race style.
The sad thing is, they’re the same people who were voting in the late 60′s through the 70′s. Why can’t their choices be just as interesting today.
Sounds like the demographic for the Baseball Hall of Fame voting.
“The Academy doesn’t have to be representative of American audiences, but it should be representative of the filmmakers and filmmaking of the modern age.”
This.
“Old farts voting for a stoic black maid or a ball busting politician or a screen”
Au contraire mon frere. Davis has white guilt working in her favour. She is, without a doubt, going to win.
The complaint that the AMPAS membership does not need to represent U.S. demographics only hides the real problem: why are Hollywood movies not more representative of U.S. demographics? Why are they still oriented around white male experience?
Even movies about people of color rarely score big with Oscar nominations unless there’s a strong white presence. That is, Precious was the exception and The Help, The Blind Side, Dances With Wolves, Driving Miss Daisy and Avatar were the norm. Even lead acting winners Forest Whitaker, Denzel Washington and Halle Berry were paired with white co-stars.
Why are films about people of color so hard to get financed, distributed, viewed, AND taken seriously as Oscar bait?
As for the comment about the male heavy presence in certain tech branches, do we know why that is? Are those fields really just not appealing to women, or is it harder for women to be taken seriously? I know that at my Big Southern State University (where I work), there are organizations for women and minorities in engineering and other STEM fields. So it’s not inevitable that these branches of the Academy should be 97% male.
We just have to figure out how to recruit, train and promote women and minorities in the tech fields.
@brainypirate: Good comment. I agree completely.
Honestly, these are the Academy Awards and this is the Academy and they have every right to be whatever way they want to be. Their awards and activities don’t influence the public in any way and any demographic image of today’s USA shouldn’t be the thing that influences the Academy.
And Brainypirate wins the comment section.
Regardless of the demographics, the Oscar ballot on this site produced similar results to the eventual Oscar Nominations. 8 out of the 9 films made the second round. They were collectively loved here and they were collectively loved by AMPAS.
Mattoc:
I wonder what the demographic of AD readers is?
Also:
When I saw the NAACP awards listed, I wondered how well the two actors who won for Jumping the Broom would stack up against this year’s AMPAS nominees. Is their absence from AMPAS an example of Oscar voters not taking that film seriously enough to award the performances? Or were there really no black male performances good enough to compete against Pitt, Clooney, Dujardin, Hill, Plummer and von Sydow?
Pfff making campaign with racial issues is so pathetic…..it won’t change anything!!
I do think younger members are required to recognize good movies like the last Harry Potter, but you don’t have many talented directors or producers in their 20′s or 30′s!! You need to be educated and mature to be able to do something that make you worth being invited to the Academy. They just can’t throw memberships to random teenagers!!
And Hollywood used to hire mostly white people for everything, now that is changing a bit but we need to wait several years until we can see that change in the Academy demorgraphic chart.
I know, this year is “cool” to embrace diversity and to show how evil white people are, while black are good but are slaves of their white masters. Well, I guess many saw The Help this year and suddenly now being white makes you bad.
In my country I’m in a association that fights for the rights of minorities (gay community and natives mostly, we don’t have many black people here) and it’s disgusting for me to see the hipocrisy around this. They pursue for an Oscar using race as a way for making campaign, just lame and very very sad. They try to make profits by making white people feel guilty for being white.
The only way the Academy will ever get ‘fixed’ is to implement a statute of limitations on membership. If after X number of decades you haven’t contributed to the film industry in any way, then you really have no business deciding what is the ‘best’ of anything.
“Why are films about people of color so hard to get financed, distributed, viewed, AND taken seriously as Oscar bait?”
because white people make 63% of the US population.
Well, that explains why the most boring and most culturally irrelevant movies get nominated each year.
I’M GOING TO MAKE A MOVIE ABOUT A STIFF WHITE REPUBLICAN MALE WHO IS HOOKED ON VIAGRA AND HAS TO OVERCOME ALL ODDS TO WIN A DANCE CONTEST. THAT MOVIE WILL MOST LIKELY GET ALL THE NOMINATIONS!
@Derek 8-Track: so where are the 37% of non-white and/or Latina/o films — and acting nominations?
I see more diversity in commercials than at the multiplex! Almost 40% of the population is “of color” (yah, I know it’s a problematic term), and yet Hollywood isn’t reaching out for them? Hollywood doesn’t want their money? (Yah, I know that’s not a great reason for making art, but still, you’d think they’d want everyone’s money, not just the white folks’.)
Hollywood does want their money — look at the the diversity found in advertisements these days! What Hollywood is not yet willing to risk, apparently, is losing the 63% of the audience who (Hwood fears) will not go see films about people who don’t look like them.
You’d think as greedy as Hollywood is, they’d be throwing bones to every demographic group in the country. But somehow they’ve gotten the idea that white men are the key audience they need. And AMPAS seems to buy into this bias and continue it with their nominations and awards every year.
Again, I believe that if we get more diversity behind the camera, that will lead to more diversity within AMPAS which will lead to a more accurate representation of American diversity at Awards time.
(And honoring excellence is very much dependent upon cultural attitudes towards what excellence looks like — history has shown that minorities have a harder time gaining the respect of their white colleagues because their work is seen as inferior for a variety of bogus reasons. Pierson’s stupid comment in the story is the same excuse given 30 years ago to why Ralph Ellison and Zora Neale Hurston and N. Scott Momaday and Maxine Hong Kingston and Tomás Rivera aren’t “as good” as white writers and don’t deserve to be studied in universities.)
No wonder Brokeback Mountain lost and the white-guilt Crash won.
Definitely. I’ve always resisted the idea that BBM lost the Oscar as a result of homophobia, but with this kind of demographic – it’s painfully obvious.
Media must be one of the only careers where the general public feel an obligation to pick apart the demographics of the industry.
There are a lot of Jewish men who are actors and hot white women who are actresses because there are a lot of Jewish men who are interested in being actors and a lot of hot white women who are interested in being actresses.
I don’t read many articles bemoaning the lack of say, a latina female presence in the field of chemical engineering. A lot of Asian men study medicine because a lot of Asian men would like to be doctors. Not as many Asian men are as interested in acting and dancing on stage as many white women are. Not a lot of black women go to USC film school to study cinematography or sound mixing.
Where is the outcry at the shortage of young Turkish electricians? Who will take a stand and demand proper representation for elderly Irish-Italian male flight attendants?
The Academy was founded by Louis Mayer. Its first president was Douglas Fairbanks. Should we be shocked and outraged that their successors bear a passing shallow cultural resemblance to them?
Why is this important?
Those other industries don’t thump their chests on national television once a year. The Academy brings this on themselves. If they don’t want the public/news media to voice an opinion on who they are and what they do, they shouldn’t broadcast their awards.
This is not problematic to me. If I want the opinions of Joe Lunchbucket and Mary Housecoat, I can watch “The People’s Choice Awards”. Do any of us really want “Twilight” to win Best Picture? I didn’t think so.
Nobody wants the Oscars to become the People’s Choice Awards. This is not about the public getting a say in the Oscars. This is about the current filmmaking generation getting a say in the Oscars.
Whaddya know. Several white male readers see no problem with predominantly white male Academy.
Well, in fairness, I was talking about my position – not the position of the article.
I misunderstood you, John W.
deleted my comment as soon as I saw what you meant.
@Deena Jones’ wig
Please, if you would direct me to your Facebook or your home address. I have to teach you a lesson while inflicting violence. I need to know where your trailers is gurl!
The Academy is the worst way to pick a Best Picture, except for every other way of picking a Best Picture.
That’s alright. My wording was bad.
I honestly wish there was a statute of limitations on Academy membership. It’s only because they prop themselves up as the authority on what was the “best of” for a particular year. They put their organization on national television and shout their choices at the top of their lungs. If they want to be considered their own private organization with no duty to be relevant to the current generation, that’s fine. But don’t carry on like you’re the be all, end all of filmmaking judgment. They should work hard to have films and craftsmen judged by their actual peers, not people who would have been their peers two or three decades ago.
“People younger than 50 constitute just 14% of the membership.”
Wow, I had no idea it was THIS skewed…well no wonder Harry Potter was snubbed! I mean the series is beloved almost as much by parents, but not too many grandparents! lol, this is ridiculous. There’s no way Dark Knight Rises is getting nominated next year either with all these old farts voting.
Martin Scorsese is 69 years old and an Academy voter. Jane Fonda is 74 and a voting member. Are these the old farts you are referring to?
@Jack: And Mexicans love gardening and Asian-Indians love running gas stations?
I find it hard to believe that there aren’t thousands of ethnic minority people around the USA dreaming of becoming filmmakers. The question that needs to be addressed is to what extent the industry gives them full opportunities to learn their craft and compete with the big boys, and to what extent the industry puts obstacles in their way.
I don’t know the answer — I’m nowhere near California. But I find it hard to believe that the lack of minority presence in Hollywood is due to a lack of interest. (And from what I’ve read about minority actors, it’s hard enough for them to find the breakthrough role that will get them out of stereotype-hell. I can only imagine the issues are as difficult for folks behind the camera.)
If you look at most of the critics giving out film awards, a lot of them are white males too though who knows what age?
Martin Scorsese is 69 years old and an Academy voter. Jane Fonda is 74 and a voting member. Are these the old farts you are referring to?
No, we’re referring to 2000 other old farts, half of whom probably don’t even merit a single paragraph in wikipedia.
Scott, There are 100 new Academy members from last year alone whose names and faces you would never recognize. Don’t pretend you know the names of thousands of filmmakers as famous as Jane Fonda.
If you think there are 6000 people in the Academy who can compare to Scorsese and Fonda, then it’s not worth the effort to explain to you.
Besides, Scorsese and are Fonda are still making movies. Nobody is suggesting currently active filmmakers should be booted out after age 65. Just the 80-year-olds who haven’t made a movie in 40 years.
You know what would be a good dose of reality? On the red carpet a week from now, how about only the Academy members who are white, male and 62 years old be interviewed by Ryan Seacrest.
Meet the Academy, Scott. They are not 6000 Brads and Angelinas. There are not 200 shy Martys hiding in the ranks.
I think one way to “fix” the Academy is to absolutely REQUIRE them to see all five nominees in a single particular category. If they can’t do that, then they should be disqualified from voting in a particular category if they haven’t seen all the nominees. I believe there are some minor categories where this is the case (documentaries, foreign film, etc.) Why shouldn’t this apply to all the categories? I would feel much better about their selections if I knew the voters had at least seen the nominees. Hell, the public does. Why aren’t they held to a higher standard of viewership?
I bet if we could dig through the profile of some of these academy members, we would probably see some very tiny brains out there…
We don’t understand why we take the Oscars so seriously anymore. All we know is that we do.
And not that I’m a Brokeback fan, but Crash’s victory over it was something that undoubtedly hurt the Oscar’s
already damaged reputation. Heck, not even Paul Haggis himself thinks his movie deserved that award. He stated that once.
I hope Beyonce votes for Meryl Streep. After all, Meryl congratulated her on her adequate performance as Deena Jones in Dreamgirls.
Ryan, that was a different Scott you were responding to, lol
And I agree with what you said btw
it’s ok Scott. I can see there are two different Scotts here today.
I agree with Keifer. In the most recent issue of Entertainment Weekly, they had a “How I’m Voting” section that featured anonymous academy members stating who they will be choosing. The member who is an actress and former nominee said the following statement regarding Best Picture. “It’s ricidulous having 9 or 10 nominees. That’s too many for anyone to have to watch”. It’s attitudes like this for any academy member that creates the problem. You just know if she can’t watch all of the Best Picture nominees, she sure as hell hasn’t seen all of the nominated acting performances. If it’s such a bother for her, why doesn’t she just resign from the academy. There are so many of us that would LOVE to have her task!
Kemal Yariz says:
February 19, 2012 at 10:55 am
Recent members: Dakota Fanning, Saoirse Ronan, Scarlett Johansson, Ryan Reynolds, Ryan Gosling, Jet Li, Gerard Butler, Jennifer Aniston, Russell Brand, Bradley Cooper, Peter Dinklage, Jesse Eisenberg, Jennifer Garner, Beyonce Knowles, Mila Kunis, Jennifer Lawrence, Rooney Mara (before Dragon Tattoo), Ellen Page, Mia Wasikowska, Anna Kendrick, Carey Mulligan, Jeremy Renner, Zoe Saldana, Adam Sandler, Gabourey Sidibe, Peter Sarsgaard, Sacha Baron Cohen, Michelle Williams, Paul Rudd, Seth Rogen, Emily Blunt, Casey Affleck, Michael Cera, Viola Davis, James Franco, Anne Hathaway ,Taraji P. Henson, Emile Hirsch, Hugh Jackman, Jane Lynch, James McAvoy, Jeffrey Wright, Chiwetel Ejiofor etc. etc.
So don’t tell me they are not trying.
Sure, but it’s going to take quite a few years to replace and/or counterbalance enough old farts to eradicate age bias.
John W says:
February 19, 2012 at 11:10 am
LOL, those numbers…..wow.
It certainly puts a lot in perspective. I think seeing this makes wins like RotK’s Oscar sweep even more miraculous (made possible only thanks to the age of Tolkien’s books, I’m sure – many voters probably read them when they were younger).
Hell, I guess TSN never stood a chance last year.
Yep, exactly.
Mark says:
February 19, 2012 at 12:46 pm
“The Academy doesn’t have to be representative of American audiences, but it should be representative of the filmmakers and filmmaking of the modern age.”
This.
Seconded!
>>Recent members: Dakota Fanning, Saoirse Ronan, Scarlett Johansson, Ryan Reynolds, Ryan Gosling, Jet Li, Gerard Butler, Jennifer Aniston, Russell Brand, Bradley Cooper, Peter Dinklage, Jesse Eisenberg, Jennifer Garner, Beyonce Knowles, Mila Kunis, Jennifer Lawrence, Rooney Mara (before Dragon Tattoo), Ellen Page, Mia Wasikowska, Anna Kendrick, Carey Mulligan, Jeremy Renner, Zoe Saldana, Adam Sandler, Gabourey Sidibe, Peter Sarsgaard, Sacha Baron Cohen, Michelle Williams, Paul Rudd, Seth Rogen, Emily Blunt, Casey Affleck, Michael Cera, Viola Davis, James Franco, Anne Hathaway ,Taraji P. Henson, Emile Hirsch, Hugh Jackman, Jane Lynch, James McAvoy, Jeffrey Wright, Chiwetel Ejiofor etc. etc.
Some of these may be part Native or Latina/o, but if I haven’t heard of it, I’m going to assume it’s not a significant factor in their careers (and I’m treating Jewish folks as white):
White, white, white, white, white, Asian-not-American, white, white, white, white, white, white, white, African-American, white, white, white, white, white, white, white, white, African-American-Latina, white, African-American, white, white, white, white, white, white, white, white, African-American, white, white, African-American, white, white, white, white, African-American, Black-not-American etc. etc.
Is that 63%?
brainypirate. thank you.
I don’t know to drive home the point to those who refuse to see it.
What the Academy’s own list of invitees shows is that they can’t think of any black actors as talented as Adam Sandler and Russell Brand.
Ryan, not even 3 Don Cheadles could match the brilliance of the duo Sandler/Brand
. Although I would be really curious to find out what they would check on their ballots. Maybe these guys’ tastes are better than their movies *a girl can hope. At least I will give credit to Brand for an article he wrote about Amy Winehouse, it was incredibly well written and heartfelt, so maybe underneath that goofiness there is a softy.
I heart you, John Horn, Nicole Sperling and Doug Smith. You have delivered a bunker-busting bomb to the Academy’s very breadbox. Pulitzer-worthy, this. The numbers speak for themselves. The scores, hundreds who haven’t worked on a movie in half a lifetime speak volumes. I can only imagine the percentages of AMPAS voters under 40, or 30. That 14%, mind you, is the membership under FIFTY YEARS OF AGE.
Thanks, LA Times for this. Couldn’t happen to a nicer organization of good ol’ boys.
Ryan, why does the link to the full article not work?
Scott, the paper moved it. Here is the new URL:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/academy/la-et-unmasking-oscar-academy-project-html,0,7473284.htmlstory
Here’s how they counted the members:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/academy/la-et-movie-academy-methodology-html,0,5185569.htmlstory
Putting a cap on membership is an interesting idea – it would certainly change the flavor of the nominations year to year.
However, some that don’t make movies anymore, but have been integral to filmmaking in their heyday, would undeservingly be “kicked out”. I propose a lifelong membership for a few greyhairs like Olivia de Havilland or Peter O’Toole.
They could hand out something like 10-20 lifelong memberships a year, as voted on by the Academy. Other members would have a 10 year limit.
PaulH, thanks. I’ll fix the links on the main page.
Anytime, Ryan. Sometimes it’s the other end that rearranges stuff and it’s not the webmaster’s fault
Some of you guys really hate old people. I hope you have a nice time when you get to the home. lol
Someone’s age or race doesn’t tell me what their tastes are. All the critics groups and other award shows give the same crappy movies awards that the Oscars do and I’m sure their demographics aren’t the same. I think we’re assuming too much here. We don’t know who really votes or what they vote for.
But I do agree that they should be inviting a more diverse and qualified bunch each year.
“Sure, but it’s going to take quite a few years to replace and/or counterbalance enough old farts to eradicate age bias.”
Ah, the irony of tossing around the phrase “old farts” while expounding upon the need to eradicate age bias.
“… I propose a lifelong membership for a few greyhairs like Olivia de Havilland or Peter O’Toole…”
The Award season just keeps getting worse and worse.
Maybe we should just kill off anyone over 40. Thank god we have Beyonce Knowles as a voting member now…
Urgh, I wouldn’t want to insure the entire AMPAS. I’ll be bankrupt in a couple of years.
“Some of you guys really hate old people. I hope you have a nice time when you get to the home. lol”
We don’t “hate hold people”. The issue that some of us have is that people who haven’t made films in decades (yes, a lot of them are “old”) are being allowed to contribute to the awarding of modern filmmaking.
I’ve got no problem with the Martin Scorseses and Clint Eastwoods who are still making movies.
damn it, I really wish we had an edit function – of course I meant “old” people, not hold people. lol
…because the Scorceses and Eastwoods are still figuring out how to compete as the world changes and as filmmaking changes — so they’re aware of what’s out there these days
It’s the folks who haven’t kept up with the changing craft who we’re worried about….
Robert A. says:
February 19, 2012 at 7:19 pm
“Sure, but it’s going to take quite a few years to replace and/or counterbalance enough old farts to eradicate age bias.”
Ah, the irony of tossing around the phrase “old farts” while expounding upon the need to eradicate age bias.
Actually there is no irony because eliminating age bias simply means a balance of young and old members. If you know anything of statistics you would know that bias occurs when the demographics are skewed from a normal distribution…and the voting demographic of the AMPAS is far from normal *rolleyes*
I don’t think that is the issue at all…
The issue is that the members are not voting for the films you want, for which some are attributing age and employment as a key factor in taste.
“Some of you guys really hate old people. I hope you have a nice time when you get to the home. lol”
It’s not the productive artists of any age who are the problem with the Academy, which should be a working organization for all individuals who are actively engaged in filmmaking. And as I am old (and white and male), I’m therefore free to fire at will.
PaulH says:
February 19, 2012 at 6:29 pm
Scott, the paper moved it. Here is the new URL:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/academy/la-et-unmasking-oscar-academy-project-html,0,7473284.htmlstory
Here’s how they counted the members:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/academy/la-et-movie-academy-methodology-html,0,5185569.htmlstory
Wow, quite impressive! They put a lot of hard work into this. I kinda figured they may have just taken a sample and extrapolated, but I guess not.
You seriously think it’s no big deal for people out of the industry for a couple of decades to be voting on what is the best of THIS year?
I don’t care what they pick (especially now lol). I just think that the the voting should be representative of the CURRENT industry.
Mattoc says:
February 19, 2012 at 7:58 pm
I don’t think that is the issue at all…
The issue is that the members are not voting for the films you want, for which some are attributing age and employment as a key factor in taste.
Well, while I may still complain I wouldn’t be quite as outraged if the voting was actually FAIR and UN-BIASED. So yes, that is the issue, xxxx. [deleted, abusive]
John W says:
February 19, 2012 at 8:03 pm
You seriously think it’s no big deal for people out of the industry for a couple of decades to be voting on what is the best of THIS year?
I don’t care what they pick (especially now lol). I just think that the the voting should be representative of the CURRENT industry.
Exactly! And let’s not pretend that the Oscars don’t matter (even though it’s even more clear now that they shouldn’t) because as was pointed out in the article…
“About 37 million people tuned in to the Academy Awards last year, and a great deal rides on the show’s outcome. Winning a golden statuette can vault an actor to stardom, add millions to a movie’s box office and boost a studio’s prestige.
For whatever reason this Awards show became “the big game” and while it once had relevance I think it’s pretty clear that they are in their own little world now.
When I saw the racial profiling, the mindless, reductive labeling by race of actors, that to me is a dangerous signal.
It’s pointless to harp on any cultural or racial group in any PRIVATE organization. 50 years ago people complained the Academy was too Jewish. Remember the topical film that won, Gentlemen’s Agreement? Long ago WASPS complained if any prominent organization had too many “white trash”–Irish and Italians, people whose family names ended with a vowel. Once you start, it won’t stop. Prometheus unbound.
Any discussions of race (colour) invites unwanted comments. Let’s focus on the interesting choices they’ve made bearing in mind the demographic, how it reflects society, what socioeconomic group. Meryl recently interviewed said Americans are very uncomfortable talking about class.
Refocus the discussion on films and awards, and how it reflects society–which always changes and evolves, it’s healthier, not differences in race or religion or politics which sows more disunity amongst us.
Holy…. Woody Allen and George Lucas and Viggo Mortensen AREN’T members???????
If that represents even a decent chunk of who else is not a member, it certainly clears things up….
But we’re not saying that there are “too many” minorities — we’re saying there aren’t enough. Apparently, the days when people complained that there were “too many” Irish, Italians, Jews, etc. became the norm, and now there aren’t ENOUGH blacks, Latinas/os, Asian Americans, Native Americans, etc.
You’re talking about excluding folks based on race; we’re talking about the folks whose races are still being excluded….
About 87% of the US Congress is white.
About 90% of the US Congress is male.
Congress is a public institution — why should private organizations be held to a different standard?
Make changes where changes can be made and spend less time harping about who arbitrarily decides what the best of film is every year. Most of us are just going to complain about their choices anyhow, so why care?
“You seriously think it’s no big deal for people out of the industry for a couple of decades to be voting on what is the best of THIS year?
I don’t care what they pick (especially now lol). I just think that the the voting should be representative of the CURRENT industry.”
*lobbies for +1 widget on this site*
After reading this report and the comments that followed from it the NBR sounds far more legit-
“For over 103 years the National Board of Review has dedicated its efforts to the support of film, domestic and foreign, as both art and entertainment. Over 250 films (studio, independent, foreign-language, animated, and documentary) are viewed throughout the year by a select group of knowledgeable film enthusiasts, filmmakers, academics, and students.”
And guess what? They voted Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows as one of the 10 Best of the Year! :p
*and diverse
88.5% of the US Congress is white/male — and yet they complain about losing power in our culture — if only!!!
Congress is a public institution — why should private organizations be held to a different standard?
I complain about Congress for the same reason. I complained about Congress in the very last line of this post.
They both need more diversity.
Complaining alone won’t change that. But shutting up and submissively accepting the gross imbalance has even less chance of changing it.
Things don’t change unless there’s pressure to change.
I have been saying that’s who it is we’ve been talking about/writing about/dealing with FOR YEARS! And the age number is WAAAAAY to low. Just attend an Academy Screening. But the lack of women representation shocks me. I knew it to be so. But there it is. In Black and White. And yes, they are allmost all also rich, and no, they don’t watch most of the movies. The comment by the actress in EW is standard. “Too many movies to see.” They don’t see them.And it’s not gonna change as life-expectancy grows and grows.
and no, they don’t watch most of the movies. The comment by the actress in EW is standard. “Too many movies to see.”
So that’s where the advocacy comes in. That’s why advocacy is important.
The more we keep the movies we care about in the conversation, the more they become “must see” films.
Academy members don’t have bad taste. They just get bad advice. When Midnight Cowboy became a must-see sensation, they voted for it.
If there are members of the Academy who fund it embarrassing to watch movies like Shame — then we have to help make it embarrassing NOT to watch those movies.
You know some of those ,”old farts”,are from The Easy Rider Raging Bull generation and they know a thing or two about making movies.I worry more about younger film makers who love CGI fantasy films.Gloss over substance.As far as the it’s too white complaint,well that is how things have evolved. Is the NBA required to include more white players,because of its make-up?
Is the NBA required to include more white players,because of its make-up?
How about framing the question more accurately. What if the NBA victories were determined by voters? An all-white panel of voters.
Is the NBA required to include more white players,because of its make-up?
How many elderly NBA players do you see on the court?
When a player can no longer play, he’s out of the game. He has to watch at home like the rest of us civilians.
“You know some of those ,”old farts”,are from The Easy Rider Raging Bull generation and they know a thing or two about making movies.I worry more about younger film makers who love CGI fantasy films.Gloss over substance.”
Although none of this is surprising it’s still hard to swallow. The academy is still essentially an all boys club that decides Its own membership. And yes here lately it has let in some diversity of sorts but not enough to really change anything. I remember reading an article about Kevin Spacey visiting several nursing homes while campaigning for American Beauty. I find it hard to believe those members in a nursing home really saw every nominated film. Or do I believe that these members are in touch with the happenings of today’s society. Of Course we as movie lovers have to help things along. It’s about the audience supporting movies that may not be aimed at your specific “group/background”
On a side note it’s odd to see how many people are still blind to the ignorance of some academy members. Was at a gay bar on valentines day and the bar was showing the movie Marty. I was appalled because we all know Mr. Borgaine was one of the most outspoken critics of BBM.
Btw white male here…
Seeing some comments I find it exhausting to continue to read about “how they don’t make them like they use too” that idea is total BS. Movies have to adapt to technology and the ideology and mind frame of today’s society. So yes movies have a lot more CGI in them because they can. But to act as if no recent movie will go down as a classic is absurd.
Also because I’ve held this in for so long I LOVE Martin Scorcesce a lot but the one film I can’t get through is Raging Bull. Ordinary People still to this day has moved me like no other piece of cinema has. Not super relevant to the conversation but I just needed to get that out haha.
Yes, Ryan, I totally agree about advocacy. Which is what Sasha does, and this is her own, and your own private website and you and she can write or advocate anything you want to. And it’s America. And you should be able to do. And Sasha is nothing if not indomitable! And she HAS helped re-shape this whole Oscar game we are playing.
And she has helped people esp. women and esp. indie films get nominations if not wins. Like who heard of Melissa Leo BEFORE “Frozen River”? Or “Winter’s Bone” ESPECIALLY last year. I aver that it would not have gotten a BP nomination without Sasha’s advocacy, and Jennifer Lawrence, too.
I’m always calling them the S.W.O.R.M. the straight white old rich men,who run Hollywood.
When you realize who you’re dealing with it’s much easier to predict who these MEN are going to vote for.
If you looked at a pie chart for SAG, it would be very different. Women have parity there. And there is diversity, certainly more than in AMPAS.
And Anne Thompson called them “the steak-eaters” or someone did a while back and are THEY going to vote for TWO women who are both over 46?
Meaning that Jean Dujardin would be the youngest, prettiest person on the podium this year that they are alllll so worried about RATINGS??? And Billy Crystal is not appealing to that younger demographic, either.
That’s why I think Michelle Williams still has a shot.
I agree the Academy’s demographic explains their taste, but why would I want to change a private organization? It’s their right to decide what’s best for their own development and who they wish to reward. The public can choose if they want to spend their money on cinemas or not.
Maybe I’m not American so I can’t understand the advocacy issue regarding a private institution. Whether it’s 100% white, or Jewish, or all gays, or women only etc. How they determine their makeup, whatever their intentions, it’s up to them, not us.
But if the Academy receives state subsidy, then it’s accountable. In other developed countries in Europe, film academies have royal patronage and/or government funding, so accountability and scrutiny applies, subject to legislature, and deference to the crown.
How they determine their makeup, whatever their intentions, it’s up to them, not us.
Aubrey, nobody is trying to prosecute the Academy. They can do what they want. You’re right.
But they’ve kept their membership details secret for over 80 years. We all had suspicions that it was an Old Boys Club — and now our suspicions are confirmed with facts.
It looks embarrassing for them. Sherak’s own pleas to “help us fix the imbalance” shows that he knows it looks bad.
You’re right. They can do what they want. They always have and always will.
The news is interesting because we think it helps explain a lot of their choices and behavior.
People on the outside can raise an eyebrow, or people can raise some hell. The Academy might change or they might not. They can be more relevant if they change. But maybe they really don’t care if they’re relevant.
Thing is, we’re on to them now. So if they don’t change, people may have less patience.
People will understand now: The AMPAS voters are not all the pretty faces who sit in the first five rows on Oscar night. We all love those famous faces. But that’s a tiny fraction of the real Academy.
But nope, now people will know that the Academy includes hundreds and hundreds of faceless industry people who have dropped off the map. In fact, we can be confident that hundreds and hundreds of Academy members haven’t been to the Oscars in years, in decades. (Some of them don’t get out much at all. Now we know that.)
If the median age is 62… and only 14% are younger than 50… just think how many Oscar voters are in their 80s and 90s. How are they watching 50 important movies they need to see each year to properly stay on top of things? Answer: They aren’t.
So if the Board of Governors care what Oscar followers thinks, they’ll work to find a better balance.
If they don’t care what loyal Oscar lovers think — then I think fewer and fewer outsiders will give a damn.
The secret is out though, so now we understand them a lot better.
We know who they are now. And we know who they aren’t.
I fear that the Academy will only change glacially, with older members dying off and Hollywood as a whole slowly, slowly getting a little bit more diverse as the decades pass. I’m glad Ryan’s pointing such facts out and that these imbalances in race and gender have been dug up, but I doubt real change is going to come soon. Really, we can’t expect AMPAS to diversify until Hollywood does. Even the most notable female directors remain on the independent, low-budget side and black directors? Few and far between. Some Asian directors have broken through in the last 20 years but Asian stars haven’t really arisen. Same with Hispanic filmmakers.
Did Scott just call me a xxxx?
looks like Scott did call you a xxxx, Mattoc.
guess I need to remove that.
over the line, Scott.
Of the people I know who are in the academy, the only ones who really watch the screeners and choose carefully are all older. There are some diligent young ones I;m sure, but if you ask me, the young members are the ones picking the shitty movies.
Also….just thought I’d mention that I recently put out a casting call for men and women between the ages of 25 and 40….any race….any nationality…no holds barred. I got 550 submissions. 75 percent of them were white actors….there were about 10 percent hispanic, 7 percent of African descent and 3% Asian. Just food for thought.
I’m glad… that these imbalances in race and gender have been dug up,
Jesse, I’ve been flailing around about this for 3 or 4 years — it’s great that the past several years the Academy have been announcing the names of all their new members.
But if they’re open about these fresh familiar names — it makes us wonder what’s there to hide about the other 5000 longstanding members literally grandfathered in over the past decades.
I’ve been joking here and on Twitter this year that I wish WikiLeaks would expose the Academy roster.
It was too big a task for anyone on the fringe to undertake. Looks as if about 15 reporters worked on this story for the LATimes. I’m not wild about the LAT, and rarely quote from them. But wow, this was good stuff. It’s what some of us have been dreaming about for years.
Next Mission:Impossible? Reveal how the numbers break down on the ballots. We want to know which movies and performances were 2nd and 3rd in the top categories. Beginning with 1941.
@brainypirate
Whites make up 63% of America but a much higher percentage of the middle and upper classes. Further, proportionality isn’t really a good argument. If you had the opportunity to make a movie that 63% of people could relate to, or one that 15% of people could relate to, which would you make? More than 63% of movies, tv, books, etc. will be made to appeal to 63% of the people, not only because they consume more movies, books and tv, but also because movies aren’t sold to individuals but the public as a whole. The absence of minority-based movies reflects not racism, but economic logic. You can ask people to be benevolent (as you define morality) and actively seek out movies that are likely to be losers (very few whites see Tyler Perry movies, for example), but that will never be the norm in a capitalist society.
Hollywood is no different from other businesses. Blacks make up only 3% of people in Super Zips (ZipCodes in the highest 1% of America in both education and income), whereas whites make up 82% and Asians make up 12% (Charles Murray, 2012).
MDB, you raised a good point about class (as a non-American, I’m not wholly familiar with your class system) vis a vis their taste in film. I would assume that what is liked by the Academy reflects the tastes of middle and upper–of the middle class the wealthier ones, of whatever complexions.
During my brief time in America the type of films and programmes on your PBS was what I would regard as the equivalent norm in my country. But I soon realized that PBS taste in programmes was very different from what I saw on Fox, ABC etc. Albeit the HBO dramas, some showcasing America’s past, its heritage (John Adams, Gilded Age subjects) was more like the BBC.
In our times, race is a convenient scapegoat for more deep rooted injustices of social disparity.
“I’ve been flailing about this for 3 or 4 years”
I don’t doubt it! (I’ve only been reading AD for about 6 months).
@mdb: It’s not that simple, because demographics don’t parallel relatability. Consider Black Pop in the 60′s, Motown, Stax…white kids were buying Supremes singles in droves. Films with black actors in black roles or non-race specific roles wouldn’t hinder box office at all. People unwilling to see a film because it features a black lead aren’t going to affect Hollywood’s bottom line nearly as much as young black/Hispanic/Asian consumers who might be drawn into films they because they feature an actor/actress and situations more akin to their environment. Sort of like how I’m a big DiCaprio fan not just because he’s boss but also because he’s a local boy raised by a single mother with a similar ethnic background to mine. Think of characters in The Sopranos shooting the shit about Italian movies…provide similar opportunities for black kids, Asian kids, bright women, mature viewers…keep shooting costs low and market shrewdly, build up some hits, give ballsy directors a chance to make low-budgeted passion projects and you start raking in bank. Hell, the counterculture were a minority in the late 60′s and they made Easy Rider a phenomenon.
I’m curious now that the pie chart and demographic information, genuine thanks to Ryan and Sasha, how many people here are willing to tweak their predictions purely based on this info, without allowing their personal preferences to interfere. So I would have to shut out entirely who or which film I’m rooting for, and make a thoroughly scientific guess on who the winners will be.
Maybe time for another survey on pure-prediction? What will win and what should win (personal). When these 2 questions are asked together, it makes it easier for anyone psychologically, to divorce their preferences from their predictions. Like online betting, you don’t bet your hard earned cash by listening to your heart, but on intuition and experience and making a cold calculation in spite of your soul.
This has been a facinating and revealing post, btw, and kudos to LAT for the source material.
@Jesse
“I fear that the Academy will only change glacially, with older members dying off and Hollywood as a whole slowly, slowly getting a little bit more diverse as the decades pass.”
We thought the same thing 40 years ago and it never did change. If anything, I think the Hollywood of the 70′s was a lot more artistically progressive that the corporate toy factory it has become. I would guess that 90% of films that have some claim on cultural value come from outside the current system.
Diversity is the key here, not age, but that diversity for change must go beyond class, colour,ethnic background and sex. It is the specific individuals invited to join, their respective artistic values and vision that will change things.
@Ryan
“When Midnight Cowboy became a must-see sensation, they voted for it.”
I swear to god that this was the biggest head-scratcher in Hollywood history. I only wish you guys had been around witness first hand when Liz Taylor opened that envelope – had this blog existed, it would have lit up. Butch Cassidy more closely matched the type of film the demographic of voters would go for. Z didn’t have a chance but was remarkably successful for a foreign film – it was too nihilistic, a facter that also deep-sixed They Shoot Horses Don’t They (10 noms, but none for BP! terrible).
You absolutely know for certain that Gene Kelly, Jimmy Stewart, Ginger Rogers and Jack Warner probably voted for Midnite Cowboy without having seen the film, with its classic bj scene in the movie theatre. There were no screeners, DVDs, etc, then, so fewer would have seen the film. And that cute song was playing on the radio all the time, so it must be OK, right? That mentality remains today and I think that the puritanism has actually increased, even among the younger voters.
First of all the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences is not a labor union. It is not a production entity. It does not guarantee employment or secure anyone of any race, creed, or political belief a position that embodies a member with supernatural powers. What AMPAS does is select from a final submission what their membership believes to be that which has excelled during the prescribed year as an art form. It’s major contribution to society is the preservation of film through various outreach programs. It provides grants and endowments to potential filmmakers. It does not guarantee anyone an award to signify their accomplishment as the best the industry has offered during the year. It polls the various guilds who then submit to the Academy the names of those individuals who have achieved a semblance of excellence in that particular guild via consideration for an honor that their artistic community established back in 1927. They do not seek the approval of filmgoers and they obviously do not embrace everyone who works in film. That’s why we have the People’s Choice awards, and the various Critics Circles and Guilds, and groups that honor or acknowledge specific genres of film. Membership within the Academy is, I suppose; is an honor. I would imagine Louis Pasteur found his membership in the French Academy of Science quite an honor, as I would imagine that Viola Davis will find her invitation an honor, if she is not already a member.
I have been watching and reading the commentaries and the articles and I must admit that I will be thrilled to watch the Academy forced open and I will applaud loudly the night in a future February when “Medea takes on Country Singers in Nashville” as Best Picture of the Year. That will be a thrill for me simply because the public should always influence and decide for everyone what they should and should not be able to do. I think it’s appalling that white men hold a stranglehold over an artistic community and decide what the public should plop down ten to twelve dollars for two hours of entertainment. We all know the public certainly does not decide for themselves which films they will view, hence the box office for films such as Transformers or The Vow or even The Help. It will be thrilling to see a slate of ten best picture nominees inclusive of Transformers, The Green Hornet, Captain America, Knight and Day.
I would hope that we would next view the Academies of Sciences and insist that members who have achieved some sort of recognition in their scientific field be asked to relinquish their membership in an Academy simply because they can’t stay awake through dinner or perhaps have a touch of senility. Hmmm I think we should actually start with the House of Representatives and the Senate. Perhaps even the Presidency. Hmmm the Supreme Court sounds like another good place to pressure about age. I mean how many Supreme Court Justices actually read everything submitted to them? Every painter in the world should be forced by the public to not be a member of an Artistic Academy after they have reached age 70. God knows most Artists are certainly not prolific after reaching 70. Just ask Martin Scorcese. Oh and yes most of Tolkien’s books were read when we were younger. So was the Bible. Ya gotta love good fantasy storytelling.
Seriously I truly believe that membership should be awarded based on achievement. That achievement should not be maligned in any way by the color of one’s skin, their religious or non-religious upbringing, or how they voted three years ago or will vote this coming year in some political process that resembles a carnival.
Now as this is a sale day due to the holiday I think I’ll go shopping but at my age I’ll have to remember where I put my car keys and what it is that I intend to buy. Damn getting old is rough and young people just have no patience for us anymore. We drive too slow and we don’t move quick enough in the stores to get out of their way. Well as Scarlett said “I’ll just think about that tomorrow…”
The one thing I do agree with is that Academy members should be seeing the work. The problem with that is there is no way to monitor that process. Well of course unless you round them all up and make them live in a specific area. Hmmmmm oh wow that smacks of another situation altogether now doesn’t it? Yikes.
OBT thank you Steve50 for the laughs. And please forgive an old white man a moment of sarcasm and insanity. My age is showing today.
Oh and one more thing before I go out and get lost and can’t find my way back home. While we’re all advocating to take away people’s rights could we also advocate that those people who are affected by having their rights modified don’t have to pay to guarantee your rights? I mean what’s fair is fair isn’t it?
So I guess that the point of this article was to claim that these voters -
1. Can’t vote so anybody young (Adrien Brody, Angelina Jolie, Reese Witherspoon, Tatum
O’Neal, Marisa Tomei, Jennifer Hudson, Charlize Theron, Anna Paquin, Mira Sorvino,
Rachel Weisz),
2. They can’t vote for anybody black (Denzel Washington, Jennifer Hudson, Mo’nique, Forest
Whitaker, Whoopi Goldberg, Jennifer Hudson, Morgan Freeman, Cuba Gooding Jr.),
3. They can’t vote for a performance that doesn’t resemble what they see in the mirror (Linda
Hunt, William Hurt, My Left Foot, Rainman, Gandhi, Haing S. Ngor, Philadelphia, Benecio
Del Toro, Javier Bardem),
4. Incapable of putting aside their backgrounds to select something like The English Patient,
Titanic, Shakespeare in Love, Chicago, Crash or Slumdog Millionaire as Best Picture?
I’m sure that those who have a valid membership have some sense of what should be anointed as cinema ‘greatness’ whether it be in acting, writing, sound, visual effects or the entire package.
Wow…I wonder how many of them are left-handed?
Well of course unless you round them all up and make them live in a specific area.
Done. It’s called Beverly Hills.
Bel Air is hardly a labor camp.
Stream screeners online instead of mass-mailing discs.
Members log in with their ID. Viewings are registered that way.
What? Can’t figure out a computer? — if they’re so out of touch that they have no assistant, nurse, friend or family member to help push a button, then they shouldn’t be voting.
Better yet — the Academy provides abundant opportunities to attend VIP viewings on the big-screen. You know, in a theater. The way normal people see movies. The way movies are meant to be seen.
Too much trouble? Fine. Let members who can be arsed to make an effort have their ballots counted.
An AMPAS members’ “right to vote” for movies they haven’t seen isn’t in The Constitution.
You absolutely know for certain that Gene Kelly, Jimmy Stewart, Ginger Rogers and Jack Warner probably voted for Midnite Cowboy without having seen the film, with its classic bj scene in the movie theatre. There were no screeners, DVDs, etc, then, so fewer would have seen the film.
steve50, quite right.
1969
- John Wayne wins for True Grit
- Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid wins Best Screenplay
- Gig Young wins for… They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?
- Midnight Cowboy? more horses? more gunslingers? groovy!
1969, the year Cowboy movies made a comeback!
Well, it’s not that surprising. America is still at least 70% white (some Hispanics are white). One would expect then that male whites would capture 35% (white females the other 35%).
Would it be likely or fair that black males dominate, based on demographics (they’re only 6% of the U.S. population) ?
At best, the story shows that there is a disproportionality, but not as vast or skewed as the headline would suggest. It is vastly more gender-disportionate than race-disproportionate.
Actually age disparity (from the American population) is the big one.
” The absence of minority-based movies reflects not racism, but economic logic.”
I agree, but that’s also a really sad position for minorities to be in. If you’re Asian American and you want to see your experiences in popular media — where do you go? Hollywood only casts people like you in supporting roles, often as the smart tech guy or Chinese mafia thug. In the name of $$$, 40% of the country is being mostly ignored.
And to be more accurate, it is a form of racism — not intentional, but structural — any systemic practice that works against minorities can be called racist, even if it’s not based on intentional prejudice.
“In our times, race is a convenient scapegoat for more deep rooted injustices of social disparity.”
Very often, yes. And people have known this for decades — look at Richard Wright’s stories about class issues trumping race issues back in the 1930s. But that doesn’t mean race is no longer an issue. Lack of quality minority characters in movies and TV is not simply a class issue. It represents the fact that producers and advertisers are skittish about movies that don’t reflect white experience–precisely because they know that white folks refuse to acknowledge that maybe they could see something familiar in a film with no white leads….
Someone correct me if I’m wrong but as I recall from my early days in NYC that if you wanted to work in Television that you had to be a member of AFTRA. Yes there were guidelines regarding membership but if you had a job that was recurring you couldn’t work unless you were a member of the Union. So with the recent announcement at the SAG awards that there would finally be the merger between both SAG and AFTRA does that mean that America’s Biggest Loser now will be able to vote in the annual SAG Awards? Will the Mob Wives now get to cast a ballot for Best Actress? With the cast of Jersey Shore get to vote for Best Ensemble? Now there’s some diversity too look forward too.
With the cast of Jersey Shore get to vote for Best Ensemble? Now there’s some diversity too look forward too.
Better them than Ernest Borgnine.
C’mon Ryan that’s like trading one idiot for another.
>> Actually age disparity (from the American population) is the big one.
I agree. Gender- and age- disparity are more apparent than race disparity, as the U.S. is still over 70% Caucasian (with Hispanic whites thrown in).
What is curious to me is that there is no RELIGIOUS breakdown to Academy membership. Even the NYT in recent years has noted the substantial numbers of important Jews in Hollywood–and by extension the Academy.
So I am wondering how much truth there is in the assertion that older white male Jews are considerably disproportionately over-represented.
This would at least in theory explain the Academy’s preferences for nominating pictures with Holocaust and race themes, given the open embrace of the civil rights movement by the Jewish community in the U.S.
And mark my words, it is also this overwhelmingly white Academy that will have voted more than 20% of the acting Oscars to African-Americans (12% of the population) when the 2011 awards are announced Sunday night.
They may be white but they have been and are very sympathetic to African-Americans from at least since 1967 (“In the Heat of the Night” and “Guess What’s Coming to Dinner?” among the five Best Picture nominees)* through 2006′s “Crash,” which received mixed critical reviews and this year’s “Help,” which will reap both female acting Oscars.
* Trace it further back to “The Defiant Ones” (1958) with Tony Curtis and Sidney Poitier or “Lilies of the Field” (1963), Oscar to Poitier over Albert Finney, etc.
You know this article has resonated when it was even mentioned on TMZ (I know – guilty pleasure while I eat dinner).
(1) As I mentioned previously, it is not surprising–nor wrong–that the Academy is overwhelmingly white, as 70% of the U.S. population IS white, and that is what one would expect to find in a democratic society with equal opportunities for all.
It has not been pointed out to my knowledge that within the past decade, three Best Actor Oscars have gone to African-Americans (Denzel, Jamie, Forrest Whittaker). So these “old white male geezers” are the same ones voting for a disproportionate number of acting Oscars going to black actors.
(This will be even more apparent tomorrow when half of the acting Oscars will go to black actors).
(2) The Academy should practice what it preaches, though, in my opinion, and not think African-Americans represent people of color or minorities within the U.S.
Gays, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, and other minorities have NEVER received either a supporting or lead acting Oscar in the 85-year history. Non-American actors are also at a strong disadvantage at competing for Oscars (compare to Cannes, for instance).
There is indeed a not very subtle pro-African-American bias within the Academy that few people recognize, as it goes against “the conventional wisdom” and the frequent charges of racism thrown about on forums like this and in the media in general.