The Movie House - Part 11

It's here: http://assets.uscannenberg.org/docs/aii-inclusion-directors-chair-20200102.pdf



There's a big problem with women getting directing jobs. And when they don't get hired as they directors. They can't be inducted into the academy branch, and then there won't be women nominated for the award.

And they're clearly just as good as the men at directing films. Suggesting otherwise is nothing but sexist.

Freeza wrote:It's here: http://assets.uscannenberg.org/docs/aii-inclusion-directors-chair-20200102.pdf



There's a big problem with women getting directing jobs. And when they don't get hired as they directors. They can't be inducted into the academy branch, and then there won't be women nominated for the award.

And they're clearly just as good as the men at directing films. Suggesting otherwise is nothing but sexist.

no they are not. im not saying a women is not capable of being as good as a man but the fact is the best directors in the world right now are men. the best actors in the world right now are white men. maybe they should make a catagory of best female actor/director and best black actor/director.

Yeah, you’re probably right. You’ve seen and read more about films than me, and even the ones doing that survey.

Unique wrote:

Freeza wrote:

Unique wrote: and theres me thinking he has won and been nominated in the past. my bad.

Then why include him? Even Al Pacino. Nobody has ever, ever complained about them getting anything undeserved. It's the opposite for them.

so what are people moaning about. the best actors and directors are making the best films year after year and winning awards for them and people start saying shit like not enough black people or women are winning them. well if they want to win awards then make a good film ffs. its a fucking insult to the best actors and directors when people talk this kind of shit.

it's a system of inclusion and exlusion which decides what separates a good film from a great film (those people being nominated aren't necessarily "the best" actors and filmmakers out there).
In a parallel universe, Nollywood films are celebrated worldwide for being the best films in the world. That's how delicate the lines of power are.

Freeza wrote:Yeah, you’re probably right. You’ve seen and read more about films than me, and even the ones doing that survey.

so are you saying if a black person or a women had made the joker it would not have been nominated.

Unique wrote:

Freeza wrote:Yeah, you’re probably right. You’ve seen and read more about films than me, and even the ones doing that survey.

so are you saying if a black person or a women had made the joker it would not have been nominated.

I’m saying if a black person or a woman had made Starsky and Hutch they’d never have made a movie again.

Just seen The Irishman, it was okay. But I couldn't get over the fact they were too old to play young man in some part of the movie. Never it was more obvious when De Niro was kicking this guy on the ground, he looked really old doing it.

Freeza wrote:

Unique wrote:

Freeza wrote:Yeah, you’re probably right. You’ve seen and read more about films than me, and even the ones doing that survey.

so are you saying if a black person or a women had made the joker it would not have been nominated.

I’m saying if a black person or a woman had made Starsky and Hutch they’d never have made a movie again.

its like you have never seen a movie from the wayans brothers

Blue wrote:Just seen The Irishman, it was okay. But I couldn't get over the fact they were too old to play young man in some part of the movie. Never it was more obvious when De Niro was kicking this guy on the ground, he looked really old doing it.

i thought the film was great tbh.

Unique wrote:

Freeza wrote:

Unique wrote: so are you saying if a black person or a women had made the joker it would not have been nominated.

I’m saying if a black person or a woman had made Starsky and Hutch they’d never have made a movie again.

its like you have never seen a movie from the wayans brothers

Over half their films are made by white, male directors. And the ones that aren’t, are literally made by themselves. So it’s not comparable to a studio film. And all the ones that Keenan made himself were major successes until Little Man, which also coincidentally was his last film.

Since then Marlon has only made shit movies with the same white director, who keeps getting chances.

Thanks for proving my point. Little Man was Keenan’s Starsky and Hutch. And he never worked again.

Blue wrote:Just seen The Irishman, it was okay. But I couldn't get over the fact they were too old to play young man in some part of the movie. Never it was more obvious when De Niro was kicking this guy on the ground, he looked really old doing it.

Believe it or not, they have used "extensive de-aging technology" to make them look younger.

I can't speak for everybody, but even young De Niro looked old in the movie.

On the left, Robert De Niro's original performance in The Irishman. On the right, his de-aged face as it appears in the film.

Freeza wrote:

Unique wrote:

Freeza wrote:


I’m saying if a black person or a woman had made Starsky and Hutch they’d never have made a movie again.

its like you have never seen a movie from the wayans brothers

Over half their films are made by white, male directors. And the ones that aren’t, are literally made by themselves. So it’s not comparable to a studio film. And all the ones that Keenan made himself were major successes until Little Man, which also coincidentally was his last film.

Since then Marlon has only made shit movies with the same white director, who keeps getting chances.

Thanks for proving my point. Little Man was Keenan’s Starsky and Hutch. And he never worked again.

i concede. they should scrap these racist awards or give all the prizes to black people or women.

The Demon of Carthage wrote:

Blue wrote:Just seen The Irishman, it was okay. But I couldn't get over the fact they were too old to play young man in some part of the movie. Never it was more obvious when De Niro was kicking this guy on the ground, he looked really old doing it.

Believe it or not, they have used "extensive de-aging technology" to make them look younger.

I can't speak for everybody, but even young De Niro looked old in the movie.

On the left, Robert De Niro's original performance in The Irishman. On the right, his de-aged face as it appears in the film.

I think it's almost there, but we know De Niro so well, and how he'd look at that age as himself.

He's not De Niro at that age, but instead his character at that age. And in that way it almost works for me through the entirety.

He could pass for the age he should be if you take his lifestyle into account. You can then justify him being a late 30s (if that what he's supposed to be?) man who tries to run himself into an early grave.

I see Stephen king is getting stick now. He said when he makes his picks for the awards he doesn't care about race or gender he makes his choice on quality and some people are saying that's not right.

Jackie Chan and John Cena in a movie together ffs

dreams do come true

Attempts to cancel Stephen King valuing quality and merit over shoehorned political-based inclusions in films? Why am I not surprised.

I hope he does not retract his comments here and stands by them.

Arquitecto wrote:Attempts to cancel Stephen King valuing quality and merit over shoehorned political-based inclusions in films? Why am I not surprised.

I hope he does not retract his comments here and stands by them.

His comments are free for all to read.

He clarified/retraced them an hour after the first tweet. Here are the four tweets where he writes about the whole thing. And I'm so fucking tired in general of people saying people are trying to "cancel" someone whenever they call out a stupid comment. Nobody is trying to cancel anyone because of that, it's simply a discourse about art.

Only people who are "cancelled" are rightfully the sex predators. But perhaps you lot disagree with people who think we shouldn't support them.

As a writer, I am allowed to nominate in just 3 categories: Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Original Screenplay. For me, the diversity issue--as it applies to individual actors and directors, anyway--did not come up. That said...

— Stephen King (@StephenKing) January 14, 2020

...I would never consider diversity in matters of art. Only quality. It seems to me that to do otherwise would be wrong.

— Stephen King (@StephenKing) January 14, 2020

The most important thing we can do as artists and creative people is make sure everyone has the same fair shot, regardless of sex, color, or orientation. Right now such people are badly under-represented, and not only in the arts.

— Stephen King (@StephenKing) January 14, 2020

You can't win awards if you're shut out of the game.

— Stephen King (@StephenKing) January 14, 2020

Only thing I disagree with is the notion that diversity isn't quality. Diversity is originality, and originality is offering something new, which in my opinion is a quality. Women have directed 5 of the top 10 reviewed films of the year on metacritic, so you can't possibly make a sound argument that men in general are better than them, because of their sex. Since women make just as acclaimed films despite in total having way fewer opportunities.

the race and sexist card players are now starting to sound like flat earthers. they 100% know there is a conspiracy but they dont have a clue as to why.

Freeza wrote:

Arquitecto wrote:Attempts to cancel Stephen King valuing quality and merit over shoehorned political-based inclusions in films? Why am I not surprised.

I hope he does not retract his comments here and stands by them.

His comments are free for all to read.

He clarified/retraced them an hour after the first tweet. Here are the four tweets where he writes about the whole thing. And I'm so fucking tired in general of people saying people are trying to "cancel" someone whenever they call out a stupid comment. Nobody is trying to cancel anyone because of that, it's simply a discourse about art.

Only people who are "cancelled" are rightfully the sex predators. But perhaps you lot disagree with people who think we shouldn't support them.

As a writer, I am allowed to nominate in just 3 categories: Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Original Screenplay. For me, the diversity issue--as it applies to individual actors and directors, anyway--did not come up. That said...

— Stephen King (@StephenKing) January 14, 2020

...I would never consider diversity in matters of art. Only quality. It seems to me that to do otherwise would be wrong.

— Stephen King (@StephenKing) January 14, 2020

The most important thing we can do as artists and creative people is make sure everyone has the same fair shot, regardless of sex, color, or orientation. Right now such people are badly under-represented, and not only in the arts.

— Stephen King (@StephenKing) January 14, 2020

You can't win awards if you're shut out of the game.

— Stephen King (@StephenKing) January 14, 2020

Only thing I disagree with is the notion that diversity isn't quality. Diversity is originality, and originality is offering something new, which in my opinion is a quality. Women have directed 5 of the top 10 reviewed films of the year on metacritic, so you can't possibly make a sound argument that men in general are better than them, because of their sex. Since women make just as acclaimed films despite in total having way fewer opportunities.

Freeza being "cancelled" happens on Twitter often with many from Tweeters who make fun of K-Pop to one who makes an outlandish statement that does not agree with another. Cancel parties are frequent on twitter and turn into a witch-hunt. Personally do not care if King is 'cancelled' nor will he given he is a sell-out by this point and at the end of his life but 'cancelling' is the backlash he is facing and that is undeniable unless we are being pedantic.


The last part has little to do with my point but if we are discussing that then I do not have any such thoughts. Some viewers simply do not focus on such things as diversity or the sex of one who is directing it. The awards by this point are barely paid attention to compared to before so if they merit their critical review that is far more lasting in a very open and aware social internet culture than some awards that have lost their meaning.

Kat Bigelow won (for Hurt Locker) over Jason Reitman for Up in the Air to which I found it was directing better despite Hurt Locker itself better as a whole.

Did I slam my fist onto my table crying sexism like those pathetic MRA activists? No. I recognised close choices are subjective despite art itself being far more objective than many would argue. If one was irate the fact that a woman won Best Director then yes that is something that should not be taken seriously.

I am not to be confused with what you stand against.

There shouldn't be any sort of idea of a "quota" for who is in what category. I, like most others, agree with Stephen. And taken at face value, I roll my eyes when I hear people plea "nominate more women for best director" or "nominate more gay women for best actress" or something like that. We should only judge on art. In this particular year there were 5 women directors who were the best of the year, it should be an all women category.

With that being said, I imagine that these statements are not to be taken literally (that would be absurd) but are merely ways to put forth the idea/conversation that women need to be given more opportunities to direct. That we need more diversity in our casts. That the Academy itself needs to become more diverse.

Those are all arguments that I agree with, and that I find pretty logical and common sense. As King mentions - you can't win awards if you're shut out of the game.

I imagine, or hope, that the un-nuanced argument is only such because it is an easier message to send. Because there is an important point to be made there.

i still fail to see what anyone would gain by not giving women the same chances as men if they have the talent. the big movie studios are all about one thing and thats making money. if i watch a film and its good then its good if its bad then its bad. nobody cares who is pointing the camara. we all have our favorite directors and thats because they have a great talent and make great movies. aint nobody that would not watch a movie because its directed by a women and the studios just want people to buy a ticket.

CBarca wrote:There shouldn't be any sort of idea of a "quota" for who is in what category. I, like most others, agree with Stephen. And taken at face value, I roll my eyes when I hear people plea "nominate more women for best director" or "nominate more gay women for best actress" or something like that. We should only judge on art.

I couldn't agree more.

The judges shouldn't care about how diverse or not their nominees are. The only thing that should matter is the quality of the movie or product you're presenting them with.

See, the people who are trying to pressure the academy into always making sure that the nominees are diverse regardless of the quality of their movies are themselves being racist without even realizing it.

There should be no quota to fill. It doesn't matter if it's all women, or all men, or all black, or all white, or anything in between. As long as those who have been nominated are the best, nobody should complain.

Not even gonna comment on the other part of his post?

For all the talk about "quality" should matter first and foremost, I don't hear you coming up with that argument whenever there's a terrible male director is nominated. Or when the movie wins.

Even last year. Green Book won best picture last year. I don't think anyone can seriously tell me that choice was about the quality and not because only old white men voted for it, because they want to rebel.

There's clearly a very singular taste in the academy, who we rightfully mock each year for picking low quality movies as winners. Then when people rightfully wants to fix the academy by nominating the best movies of the year, who just so happens to be directed by women. People start making quota arguments.
_____________

Last year Adam McKay was nominated for Vice, an outright terrible film. Was that because people thought it was good. Or because of him being a powerful Hollywood figure, or because they wanted to support the anti-republican sentiment? I can't see an argument for it being worth a best director nom.

How often are anyone other than white men nominated for bad/mediocre films?

Here are the women who have been nominated Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker), Lina Wertmüller (Seven Beauties), Jane Campion (The Piano), Sofia Coppola (Lost in Translation) and Gerwig (Lady Bird).

You can't tell me that out of almost 500 total nominations through the years, there hasn't been more than 5 times in 92 where a woman were a top 5 director of the year.

This isn't the nominees fault. It's a homogenous looking voting body who votes white, because their demographic has played a huge part in what they like. As a white dude myself I often like, what people like me like. Where as women I encounter have wildly different tastes. None of those tastes are more right than others, and if we want to subjectively determine the "best" film, as stupid as that really is in art, then we have to assemble a voting body that is representative of either the country, or world, we live in.

Freeza wrote:Not even gonna comment on the other part of his post?

For all the talk about "quality" should matter first and foremost, I don't hear you coming up with that argument whenever there's a terrible male director is nominated. Or when the movie wins.

Even last year. Green Book won best picture last year. I don't think anyone can seriously tell me that choice was about the quality and not because only old white men voted for it, because they want to rebel.

There's clearly a very singular taste in the academy, who we rightfully mock each year for picking low quality movies as winners. Then when people rightfully wants to fix the academy by nominating the best movies of the year, who just so happens to be directed by women. People start making quota arguments.
_____________

Last year Adam McKay was nominated for Vice, an outright terrible film. Was that because people thought it was good. Or because of him being a powerful Hollywood figure, or because they wanted to support the anti-republican sentiment? I can't see an argument for it being worth a best director nom.

How often are anyone other than white men nominated for bad/mediocre films?

Here are the women who have been nominated Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker), Lina Wertmüller (Seven Beauties), Jane Campion (The Piano), Sofia Coppola (Lost in Translation) and Gerwig (Lady Bird).

You can't tell me that out of almost 500 total nominations through the years, there hasn't been more than 5 times in 92 where a woman were a top 5 director of the year.

This isn't the nominees fault. It's a homogenous looking voting body who votes white, because their demographic has played a huge part in what they like. As a white dude myself I often like, what people like me like. Where as women I encounter have wildly different tastes. None of those tastes are more right than others, and if we want to subjectively determine the "best" film, as stupid as that really is in art, then we have to assemble a voting body that is representative of either the country, or world, we live in.

dude you are starting to sound like betty.

@Unique, could you at least once formulate more than one sentence about what it is that you disagree with in my post?

I'm not even sure you've comprehended my argument later in the post, since I've got a sneaking suspicion you barely read whatever it is that you reply to.

Let me make my opinions simple:
• There shouldn't be any quotas for nominees, like sex, race etc.

• People should be nominated for their art, and not because of an outside agenda (this happens all the time, as my McKay comment suggested)

• People vote for people they like and people like themselves. Race is a huge part of that.

• The academy is mainly old, white men. When there's one demographic who are such a powerful voting body, the taste will represent their taste, and not a general taste. (https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/culture/story/oscars-2019-makes-academy-voting-body-voting-process-60830793)

• Women are 31% of the voters in the academy. I'd venture a guess that the amount of women in the academy is much, much smaller.

• Women make movies that are much more in tune with womens' sensibilities. And therefor they'd be nominated more frequently, if there were more women in the directing branch of the Academy.

• It has been hard for the Academy to get more women in, because they usually only accepted members who had been nominated before. And when you only nominate people who look like yourself. Then the look of the total demographics won't change.

• And for all the outrage against twitter complaining about people of one race not getting nominated, I think the academy has vastly improved, but there's still ways to go.

12 years a slave got plenty of nominations and won lots of awards and why did it do so well? simple because it was a great film with great acting from men and women and the director did a great job. nothing to do with race of gender. more great acting and directing from black people and women that make great films like this will win awards its as simple as that. morgan freeman has been nominated and won lots of awards because he is one of the best actors you will ever see. damon wayans not so much. meryl streep has been nominated for and won as many awards as anyone because she is a great actor. jada pinkett smith ( who started this shit ) is a rubbish actor and thats why she has not had the success as streep. all this goes to show if you have the talent you will get the recognition.