The people that vote for the Oscars, don't look like the people that watch the films. The Academy is much older, whiter, and dude-ier*. Oscar winners, are the inevitable outcome of Oscar voters.
The question isn't "Has the Academy changed enough to where filmmakers from marginalized backgrounds have the same chance to win an Oscar yet?"
The question is "Will the Oscars have the same relevance to society 10 years from now, that they do today?"
If you constructed an Academy that was 81% Black folk who had grown up in a majority Black country like Nigeria*, and 67% men, with an average age of ~60, and ask them to pick Oscar winners, you'd have a similar problem, but in a different direction.🙂🙃
(*Being Black in a majority Black country like Nigeria, is very different than being Black in the US. A Black person in the US, has much better cultural understanding of majority US culture).
@mekkaokereke because the jury are previous winners. It will take time to change the composition of the jury, and even when it happens it’s still an office party like a fancy dundees and has nothing to do with merit or representation
@mekkaokereke
Also seems relevant that Oppenheimer basically ignores the devastating consequences of the bomb for Japanese civilians. Not even a few minutes on this issue. Why make people (Academy voters, American citizens) uncomfortable when you could focus on McCarthyism instead?
How good you thought Barbie or Oppenheimer was, depends deeply on how much of the underlying referent system you carry into the movie.
The more you understand about US consumer toy culture, contemporary US sexism, and the Barbie toy... the better the Barbie movie was for you. Men who knew more about sexism and the Barbie toy, enjoyed the movie more.👍🏿
Oppenheimer was the inverse. Men who knew less about Lumumba and Navajo people, liked it more.
🙂🙃
That's the kind of thing that someone that's used to having most movies assume their cultural context, would say.🤷🏿♂️
It's like "I don't have an accent!" Which really means, "I assume that my accent is the default."
All movies depend on some cultural context. All. No exceptions. The fact that most of the movies are in English, with no subtitles, is in and of itself, a cultural context.
Even a simple establishing shot of a ranch home in the suburbs, depends on cultural context.
Barbie worked for significantly more movie watchers than Oppenheimer did! The cultural context of Barbie was familiar to more people.
The context of what it feels like to be marginalized may have been foreign and inaccessible to a subset of men, but they are the minority. They just happen to be the majority of "Oscar voters."
Not the majority of regular people or filmmakers, or even award winning filmmakers. Just Oscar voters!
Most of the high quality uranium came from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Congo was recently liberated from Belgium, but Belgium was still doing colonial stuff. The prime minister of the DRC asked the US government for help not being bullied by France. The US government said "But we like Belgium more than we like you, so they can bully you, it's fine! LOL!"
Lumumba said "Please? The only other superpower I could ask for help is the USSR."
Anyways, Lumumba was assassinated and the DRC has been in turmoil and violence ever since. Many times more people died in Africa so that the US could get uranium for the bombs, than died in Japan when the bombs were dropped.
5.4 million people died in the Congo, because Patrice Lumumba was assassinated, because he asked the US for help in a way that made the US feel that if they didn't help, he would sell his uranium to the Soviets. And the US had no intention of helping.
@mekkaokereke@dascandy42 to be clear, "So we said '🤬'" is an excellent summary... if "we" is the US, we said that by attempting to assassinate Lumumba, backing a coup that overthrew his government and replaced it with an autocracy, and supporting a successful operation to have him killed
@dascandy42@mekkaokereke the Belgian rule over Congo is a dark and complicated chapter. One of the main factors for the even for colonialism gruesome monstrosities was that in the beginning Belgian Congo was owned by the king of the Belgians and the property was guaranteed not by Belgium but by all other states that took part in the Berlin Afrikakonferenz because it was part of a power game between Belgium and the king (who had very few rights and felt ridiculed by the state of Belgium).
@dascandy42@mekkaokereke As the king owned Congo as property guaranteed by all other states of the Afrikakonferenz and he was trying to improve his power compared to the state of Belgium, he did not implement much of a statehood, laws or bureaucracy in Congo. Which was what promoted the terror rule with chopping of hands and most of the other cruelties for not fulfilling rubber quotas.
I'm so mad that I ate chocolate hands as a kid! I didn't know the origins. I just thought Belgian chocolate was high quality. And no one told me! They're just like "The kid knows his chocolate. Let him enjoy things."
@mekkaokereke more generally, this suggests that less informed people prefer Oppenheimer to Barbie and vice-versa. My teenage daughter preferred Oppenheimer to Barbie (though enjoyed both); I realize my sample size is one person who has a limited knowledge of indigenous land rights, Pan-African history, and consumer toy culture, but your theory explains my anecdote pretty well
@mekkaokereke i don't want to lower the tone of this important discussion - the hypothesis looks good to me - but just wanted to remind folks of #whitesaviorbarbie as an eduucational tool (on instagram)
“The more you understand about US consumer toy culture, contemporary US sexism, and the Barbie toy... the better the Barbie movie was for you. Men who knew more about sexism and the Barbie toy, enjoyed the movie more.👍🏿”
Just listened to a long information heavy rant from my wife about how terrible the movie was if you understand anything about sexism and the history of feminism. So, I am guessing this trend (if true) peaks at a pretty low-level of knowledge about sexism and then reverses.
@icastico Yep, it was a bit "for people new to feminism/into "you go girl, lean into it, up with girls" type feminism. Enjoyable enough fluff but not about to actually get too radical in any way. It wasn't intersectional feminist Barbie but that's okay, it's still pretty entertaining considering what the big studios are churning out these days.
The studio/production house that keeps releasing phenomenal movies is A24. The work they release is almost always great storytelling, fosters genuine diversity instead of tokenism, and it's Incidentally, one of the few studios/production houses that met striking workers demands so got a waiver to continue filming during the strikes. We need more of this kind of integrity, creativity and love of filmmaking. They do exactly what studios are meant to do, they support and nurture talent and get really extraordinary films made (EEAAO was one of theirs, and more recently the very remarkable The Zone of Interest, they're both remarkable films that really use film as a creative medium and not just "a visual book" type filmic storytelling). @mekkaokereke
@fifilamoura
Poor Things was way more feminist than Barbie, but it didn't have the marketing/merchandising bucks or family-friendly appeal. @icastico@mekkaokereke
@camille@fifilamoura@icastico@mekkaokereke The dialogue and ending were certainly feminist, but the premise of a toddler-brained woman hypersexualized and spending 2/3 of her time in captivity was not.
@LinuxAndYarn
Boo! I reject the idea that women facing any adversity is anti-feminist. Oppression is the reason we fight for women's liberation, but even liberation doesn't mean absence of struggle.
This whole "feminism means women are delicate flowers" discourse is the most disempowering anti-feminist stuff.
This is more than triumph over adversity, the plot's still immersed in creepiness in a way that would not be so grating if Bella was an adult woman the whole time.
@icastico@mekkaokereke Agree. I was like "this is what revved people up about Feminist Truth? this remedial level of exploration?!?" So there's a kind of bell curve, but that middle probably covers plenty of the population. The A Little Knowledge folks.
@acm_redfox@mekkaokereke@icastico Speaking as the daughter of a single mom, who worked in male-dominated fields most of my life, and didn’t marry until my 40s, I think the condescension to women who loved Barbie is a bad look.
It’s a fun movie that makes some valid points, which resonated more than a billion dollars’ worth with all kinds of people who could relate to Barbie’s (and Ken’s) experiences, one way or another. (1/2)
I don’t think it was trying to be a feminist manifesto, or be all things to all women and girls. I do think that it will help girls, especially, think about some things that may help them assert themselves in the world as they grow up. (2/2)
I remember when Wonder Woman came out and women were allegedly weeping at the scenes with the Amazons. I didn't get it, but I was an athlete - for me that was just Tuesday.
Same with Captain Marvel; the flashbacks and constant self-doubt seemed super heavy-handed to me, but for some people, it was validation of a struggle they'd experienced their entire lives - one they might not have even been able to put words to before that.
I think when we put down Feminism 101 stuff like Barbie we forget that a lot of women never even get that far. They've been swimming in an ocean of patriarchy their entire lives. And one day you pull them gently out of the water and ask them if they're okay being wet and cold all the time and it's one of the biggest revelations they've had in their entire lives.
I'm glad movies like Barbie, Wonder Women, and Captain Marvel are there for that.
@mekkaokereke@bittersweetdb@acm_redfox@icastico I liked the scene, but to me it was just, look at this badass superhero doing something nobody else could, like Superman saving a plane that was about to crash; I understood the history behind trench warfare and that definitely made it more significant, but it was perhaps the least "overtly feminist" thing about the movie.
Well, other than the weird third act Hades thing which felt entirely tacked on, but that's just me.
@tess@mekkaokereke@bittersweetdb@acm_redfox@icastico I liked the scene too and I feel it was powerful in the context of the film but to me the scene where she speaks up in a room full of powerful men was more impactful.
I agree. I wish more people would see the new arrivals as a chance to "yes, and" them into greater insight, and not as an occasion to go all hipster about how long they've already known the thing the new folks have just discovered.
[Full disclosure: I'm a guy who was raised by a mother who was more-or-less a 2nd wave feminist, so you can take take my views with that in mind.]
@tess@bittersweetdb@acm_redfox@mekkaokereke@icastico my objection to barbie is not that its feminism is 'elementary' but that it uses capitalist 'lean in' feminism as a tool to whitewash mattel, a company notorious for use of virtual slave labor. mattel gets to be portrayed as goofy, arrogant, and wrong, but well meaning and ultimately benevolent. all it really needs is Women In Charge, people who can speak to the soul of the company/soul of feminism: the founder of mattel (a convicted thief of public funds)
@mekkaokereke There were a number of important adjacent stories ommitted—the source of uranium (mines in Belgian-controlled Congo), the native people living in and around Los Alamos, the victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But remember, this wasn’t the story of The Bomb. It was the story of Oppenheimer.
Yeah, and a movie can't tell everything. The most important editorial decision, is what not to put in the story. That choice alone decides so much about what will be framed, and what the viewer is assumed to know.
For example, it was an editorial choice not to include the fact that Oppenheimer chose to work with Black nuclear physicists, because his view was "Anything to get this project done! I need the best!" But it was included that he worked with people accused of spying.
@mekkaokereke Those choices are not hard to understand. Oppenheimer was closely involved with Communist Party members in Berkeley in the 1930s (including his brother Frank and his lover Jean Tatlock). Following the war, his Communist associations came under fire and resulted in his loss of security clearance. How could you possibly omit that in a bio of Oppenheimer. By contrast, the Black scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project were located in Chicago and New York, not in Los Alamos.
@mekkaokereke The editorial choice to exclude Black scientists goes back to the source material. I searched for the names of the most prominent Black participants in the Manhattan project in "American Prometheus." I found none of them. Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin didn't include any of them. At least Nolan included one of them (blink and you'll miss it)—J. Ernest Wilkins Jr. (played by Ronald Auguste)
Those are weak deflections from clear editorial choices by the film maker.
There's more "source material" for Black scientists working on Trinity, than there is for Oppenheimer sitting buck naked in a chair! 🍑
But screenwriters and directors make choices of what minor details to accentuate, and what major details to make small. There's nothing wrong with this! But own the choices.
This was the film that Nolan wanted to make. Which is fine! It just didn't say much new stuff.
"Lise Meitner, who discovered nuclear fission while working with fellow chemist, Otto Hahn, but wasn't named when Hahn was given the Nobel Prize in Chemistry"
Irène Joliot-Curie "who laid the groundwork for the Manhattan Project from Europe"
"Elizabeth Rona, the foremost expert in plutonium, who gave rise to..."Fat Man" & "Little Boy," the bombs dropped over Japan"
Leona Woods Marshall
Elizabeth Graves
Joan Hinton
& more
"meet the World War II female scientists who worked in the secret sites of the Manhattan Project. Recruited not only from labs & universities from across the United States but also from countries abroad, these scientists helped in—& often initiated—the development of the atomic bomb, taking starring roles in the Manhattan Project."
Agnes Lee is fascinating woman who worked on the Manhattan Project, testing blood of those exposed to massive radiation. Imagine even a tiny cameo, vs. Cillian's butt.
"She was half-white & half-Native American...She played tennis with Enrico Fermi at Los Alamos...she finally let him win a game after finding out who he was at the end of the war"
@michael_w_busch@mekkaokereke My gut reaction was "guy who made (admittedly, enjoyable) Batman films is going to try to tell the story of an horrific chapter of human history?" and had zero interest. We did our part for Barbie by seeing it in the theatre and buying the disc release.
But yeah, there was no part of this that wasn't going to be a bit Team America about the story of creating atomic weapons.
@tehstu@mekkaokereke I did not watch either movie. I did read the critiques of both.
I learned those parts of Oppenheimer's history with thanks to people I lived near in New Mexico and to a couple of my physics professors who took care to talk to their students about the historic entanglements of what they were teaching.
Not just Americans. You don't have to be a US citizen to know a thing or two about US consumer culture, US sexism, or Barbie. Most US citizens don't even know who Patrice Lumumba was.🤷🏿♂️
US citizens are sometimes described by Africans as "People who don't ask any questions." or "Uncurious people."
The methodology? I pulled it right out of my peer-reviewed* Assumption Secretion System.🤡
(* "Peer reviewed," because sometimes I catch my friends looking at it).
@mekkaokereke This makes me wonder about “Moonlight”. I can’t think of a white savior in it (there are hardly any white characters, even in the background). But something about the film must have appealed to enough Academy voters for it to win Best Picture.
@mekkaokereke I see! Thanks for the clarification. — It’s a wonderful movie that I have used in two film courses. Naomie Harris as Paula, Chiron’s mother, puts on a performance that has become a touchstone for me (in terms of paying attention to “supporting roles” in films and novels).
@mekkaokereke@AndrewShields a big budget Hollywood civil rights movie will never be made for one simple reason- return on investment. For a movie to make money it needs global appeal. It’s become increasingly common for Hollywood to release edited versions of films for foreign markets to accommodate local sensibilities, particularly in Asia and China. Hollywood is catering to the alleged disdain for dark-skinned faces in China and parts of Asia.
Hollywood execs don't ruin their own movies with Black people in it because foreign audiences don't like it.
Hollywood execs ruin their own movies with Black people in them because they are projecting their own racism onto foreign audiences.
Movies with Black leads and characters consistently overperform in foreign markets, especially China. Everyone always acts surprised when this happens. 🤷🏿♂️
@mekkaokereke
I only take a minor objection to this, in that I am an old white man and I love watching movies that show different types and genders of individuals. I was probably influenced by Priscilla, Queen of the Desert and Mrs Doubtfire at a younger age, but it likely went back much further. I do support further diversity among the Oscar voters.
There's nothing wrong with liking the movies that you like! Seriously! 👍🏿
And there's also nothing wrong with liking movies that are told from a perspective that isn't for you. 👍🏿
I'm just pointing out that the people that vote for the Oscars are not representative of film watchers, or even award winning film makers. It's an artificial filter on prestige.
And I'm pointing out that Oscar bait films from other perspectives, are still made for the same eye.
@mekkaokereke
My opinion is that what as always mattered has been the money and not the award shows. I thought Cord Jefferson’s acceptance speech was spot on. Execs need to stop chasing blockbusters (which are mostly busts) and start taking more measured risks on more diverse projects.
Add comment