Al Sharpton planning protest at Oscars

http://deadline.com/2015/02/oscars-a...sy-1201377645/

Ok I generally try to stay away from anything race related but Al Sharpton is disgusting. He tries to rip people apart for his own gain. Listen it's no secret that Hollywood could uses some diversity. It's slowly getting better. But Sharpton is hot about the Selma snubs. For one I think he is hot about the wrong snub (I haven't seen Selma and I'm sure it was fantastic and David Oyellowo killed it I am sure). Chadwick Boseman should have been nominated as James Brown that's just a fact. Sharpton must have a short memory.

Let's review last year's awards.

Best picture winner: 12 Years A Slave (basically an all black film with a black director)
Best Director: Alfonso Cuaron (a Mexican)...Steve McQueen was nominated and had a good chance to win.
Best Supporting Actress winner: Lupita Nyong'o (Mexican and African)
Best Adapted Screenplay winner: John Ridley (African American)
Best Supporting Actor: Barkhad Abdi (was nominated and might have won if not for Jared Leto's turn)
Best Actor: Chiwetel Ejiofor (nominated and frontrunner most of the year could have easily won)
Best Original Screenplay and Best Actresses: were the only major categories there was not a minority nominated or minority winner.

Again he is hot because of Selma but I read a story that Selma was really really late in screening for the Academy. That could have attributed to the snubs as well. Other then then that the only other film of color in the Oscar races was Get On Up and it never really was (I think if they scheduled it for later in the year Chadwick would have got nominated they just released it too early...again I think he should have been either way).

So to me the problem isn't the Academy it's the lack of quality black material out there and of course Hollywood executives leaning towards safe white leads if there is a role that could be raceless. Also if I were the artists I would want my work to win on it's own merit not because some jacka** is lobbying for me because of my race. Now if they get nominated in the future it could feel tainted because the academy doesn't want that publicity again.

I just don't like Sharpton I guess. Once you stick your nose in every single race problem justified or not you lose credibility. Seems to be in it for himself too. Go away.

__________________
I came here to do two things, drink some beer and kick some ass, looks like we are almost outta beer - Dazed and Confused

101 Favorite Movies (2019)

Yep, political correctness assumes "racism/sexism/bigotry/misogyny/homophobia/xenophobia/transphobia/(insert random phobia here)" by default. Instead of the normal 'innocent until proven guilty' mindset

In their mind, if a film which happens to include a black actor is snubbed, then it must just be because the actor is black - not for some other, less xenophobic reason.

Al Sharpton is a self-promoting, opportunistic, racist. Anyone who thinks a black man can't be a racist is both an idiot. Thanks to Sharpton race relations are worse in America when they should be getting better.

That's about it too. Even Sharpton doesn't believe his own spin, his agenda is himself. And that's sad. He could be working towards a better America, instead he creates division to gain TV air time for profit. Boo!

I really hope they do a Al Sharpton biopic.......



.....and cast a white actor in black-face.

It seems especially egregious considering how Bradley Cooper got a Best Actor nomination for American Sniper despite not getting nominated for other major acting awards like the Golden Globes, which Oyelowo did. That recently released interview with an Academy voter had her explain the reasoning as to why the Academy wouldn't care about Selma but would care about American Sniper and it was...objectionable, to say the least.

Also, just because the Oscars favoured a lot of black people last year, that automatically makes it okay for them to get seriously shunned the next year because "they already won so they should quit complaining"?

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Sounds like your arguing for affirmative action at the the Oscars. Please tell me your joking

Nitpicking. And still failing to substantiate that some 'racist conspiracy' is the reason the film was snubbed. That mentality is based solely on presuming by default that if a film starting a black actor isn't selected that it must be racism.

If "Plan 9 from Outer Space" had cast black actors, the same crew would probably claim "racism" is the reason it was never nominated for an Oscar.

"They" aren't entitled to "win" simply by virtue of being born with the right skin color - they're entitled to equal opportunity to win. That's reverse racism, nothing more.

I think the Philadelphia Phillies 'deserve' more World Series wins. We need to create a new rule that the Yankees only get 2 strikes, so that the win ratio will be 'equal'. The Yankees have had too many wins anyway, so they have no reason to whine.

I read what she said about the movie. I don't see anything wrong with it. Totally right about the "i can't breathe shirts". Seems they were already looking for a reason to get mad before they even voted.

And like it or not the Oscars is as much a campaign as anything else. Joaquin Phoenix is never going win unless he absolutely blows the socks of the academy because he won't play the game. She dumped on Boyhood too in the same interview.

I am not joking.

Call it nitpicking all you want, it still doesn't hide the fact that a film about a white American who spends a whole movie killing Iraqis managed to bypass the usual awards process on the basis of it being a massive hit by an already-acclaimed director while a film about an important black historical figure gets a mere two nominations that do sort of feel like consolation prizes more than anything.

Plan 9 From Outer Space is a bad example because it's a zero-budget monster movie and I seriously doubt its creators thought they were making an Oscar-worthy movie in the first place.

Also, are you absolutely sure that's what reverse racism is?

Sadder still. "Discrimination is okay if group A had it worse than group B historically" - two wrongs make a right apparently

All of which were justified by the rules of war within the context of the film; as far as the controversy goes regarding whether or not the actual Sniper was as noble as he was made out to be in the film; that's another story, but a film being accurate to real life isn't an automatic perquisite to being Oscar-worthy. The Godfather is supposedly pretty inaccurate to the actual Italian American mafia for example.

If you don't like the film simply "because it was about the Iraq War" then that shows an agenda, rather than an objective critique - I wasn't extremely thrilled with it either, but I was judging it by the plot and acting, not by it merely including politically incorrect subject matter. People should be able to appreciate a film on its own merits whether it was about an unnecessary and costly foreign war or not. I don't know of anyone right or left who thinks Vietnam was a good idea; but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy a film like Full Metal Jacket - I can mentally differentiate between 'depicting war' in a film, video game, etc, and telling people that "Killing people is awesome!"

Slumdog Millionare anyone?

I still doubt it would stop race-minded people from seeing subtle traces of 'racism' pretty much anywhere if they scanned their eyes hard enough.

Claiming that "you want more blacks to win Oscars" simply by the virtue of being black is reverse racism.

A person who isn't a racist is colorblind - they want the objectively best film to win regardless of color, or regardless of "how many black films" have one in the past. Affirmative action is also known as "positive discrimination" for a reason.

yeah, i'm tired of black people getting all the breaks because they were born with the "right skin color."

ugh "reverse racism" is so stupid. it's usually brought up by white people who don't realize that real racism is not dead in America. yes, in an ideal world Affirmative Action would not be necessary, but racism and sexism are sadly still a large part of our society and without things like Affirmative Action, those voices won't be able to be heard in certain sectors of society. the ability of white people to feel persecuted in this country never ceases to amaze me. i'm not even saying any of this necessarily pertains to the Oscars, but the fact that a movie that seems exactly like the kind of movie that wins a lot of Oscars was denounced by several members of the academy with some highly questionable remarks is not a good sign.

Well If you're tired of it then you need to grow up and stop looking at the world with 'race' tinted lenses.

It is stupid, I agree:



Racism is stupid, regardless of the 'race'.



Even white supremacists are "against racism" (of the anti-white variety) - people only concerned with a specific type of racism can't claim they aren't racist themselves.

Because if it was brought up by Aborigine people it would make a difference

Racism isn't dead by any means - nevertheless the burden's on the accusor to prove the racism, rather than "presume" racism by default simply because "racism exists".

You're going to need to substantiate that. I'd say the real answer is to ending discrimination across the board, rather than going in the opposite direction to try to 'even the score'.

You keep resorting to strawman - I don't feel that I'm 'persecuted' to any significant degree, I feel that blowharded claims of racism by Al Sharpton and his ilk are like "The Boy Who Cried Wolf", and cause real cases of racism to not be taken seriously.

That's fair enough - still the burden's on you to prove "racism" is a motive, not on them to prove they're "not racist". Especially considering that the Oscars are the same group which nominated 12 Years a Slave, Slumdog Millionare, and many others. This isn't the Salem Witch Trials.

Not to mention that you're comparing mild affirmative action during the reconstruction era to ensure that freed blacks could have jobs and buy food, to advocating "affirmative action in the Oscars" - a comparison which in my humble opinion is... ludicrous

Yeah.

It becomes a problem when the inaccuracies go beyond narrative convenience and into intellectual dishonesty. The Godfather isn't the best counterpoint because it never really frames its main characters as heroes (sympathetic and fascinating, perhaps, but not heroic - except maybe Michael, if only to show how he becomes a villain over the course of the movie).

Hey, now, I liked The Hurt Locker, but at least it had some nuance and showed how its gung-ho bomb-defusing protagonist was actually a seriously damaged individual who was just as likely to jeopardise a mission as accomplish it. Even if I were to ignore the objectionable aspects of the real Chris Kyle and how he took pride in killing people (as opposed to his film counterpart feeling guilty about it), the film does still get inconsistent in its characterisation as it shows film-Kyle disobeying orders by getting involved with a ground team just for the sake of seeing more action.

Bad example, unlike American Sniper it actually made a decent showing at other major awards ceremonies like the Golden Globes or the SAG Awards, even winning a whole bunch of them in the process.

Meanwhile, you can just conveniently ignore racism pretty much anywhere? Just because it's not a horde of Klansman galloping through the streets doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

There's nothing objective about the Academy Awards.

You'd think growing up would involving becoming even more aware of racial prejudice, though. Also, when you are a person of colour you have no choice but to wear "race-tinted lenses", so I don't see why I should just pick and choose when it's convenient for me to acknowledge racism.

The problem being that anti-PoC racism is a lot more widespread and insidious than anti-white racism. It doesn't just manifest itself in organisations like the KKK or the Aryan Nations, it's also hardwired into many institutions within Western society - including the Academy. Meanwhile, what's the worst "racism" that white people experience? Being called a cracker? Wake me up when a black cop shoots an unarmed white teen for wearing a hoodie.

Indigenous people can't bring up "reverse racism" because of the very simple fact that they are already experiencing actual racism.


Exactly, but what if the accused dismisses the accuser for being overly sensitive and "reverse racist"?


It's not about equality, it's about justice.

What do you consider to be "real cases of racism", then?


This sounds an awful lot like the film institute version of "I'm not racist, I have a black friend".

Why?

You're admitting then that you think discrimination on the basis of skin color is acceptable.

Why stop with the Oscars then? Why not grant minority athletes in the NFL, MLB, automatic MVP statuses?


This rant's not about American Sniper; if you want to argue that there was undeserved bias in favor of that film that should be a separate issue.

You're arguing that there was racial bias against the other film; I used Slumdog Millionaire as an example of a film featuring minorities from a relatively unknown director which won an Oscar.

That's really just an apology from you for admitting you want to turn the Academy Awards into a political venue for promoting "minority films", rather than its intended purpose.

You're making the assertion - you need to prove this. Saying "racism exists" doesn't mean every member of a certain race has experienced racism, to a degree which is disproportionate to other forms of unkind behavior.

(ex. "Short people", or "people with glasses" often face bullying or unkind behavior in high school which would be on an equal level to the racist behavior which a black student might have experienced; however the former groups aren't considered "protected classes").

You're basically making a grand assertion about "racism" which there is no way to "disprove". And you're also making the reverse assumption with white people. Even if anti-white racism is "less common", it doesn't make the instances in which it does occur "less worse" than anti-black racism simply because the skin colors are reversed.

Again the burden of the accuser.

You'd have to first prove the racism did occur, rather than assume "it must have occurred" simply because they are a minority. That mentality would be like a lousy employee constantly assuming he is being fired because of "anti-short discrimination", when in reality it's because he's a lousy and entitled employee. Just because discrimination against short people does occur, doesn't mean it did occur.

And you'd also have to prove the incident was more severe than levels of abusive behavior which people routinely experience for "non racist reasons".

E.X. Someone making a rude remark to short person about their height could easily be as hurtful as making a racist remark to a black person. The main difference is that one has been given the label of "protected class" while the other hasn't - the actual xenophobic behavior in itself however isn't much different.

Not much different from the outdated Catholic concept of persecuting Jews en masse because "they" as a collective killed Christ.

The Constitution and the Enlightenment helped to affirm the concept of people being individuals, rather than simply 'part of a collective' based on their race, religion, skin color etc

The concept of people being regarded as simple "members of their collective or caste" rather than individuals, is retrogressionist and animalistic, and harkens back to barbaric, authoritarian cultures, as well as modern day totalitarian countries such as North Korea.

Actual workplace discrimination, racially motivated crimes, etc. Someone making a loud unproven allegation that Hollywood snubbed them simply for their race doesn't qualify.

The burden's on you to prove that "Hollywood is racist" - you've failed to do so, just beg the question.

Policies during the reconstruction era were about returning basic human and Constitutional rights to blacks which had been denied. "Winning an Oscar" does not qualify as a basic human or Constitutional right by any means.

If these are your seriously views you're to the left of the Communist Party USA; the closest they get to approaching your views is a "right to welfare" and a "right to employment" - even they don't mention a "right to win an Oscar".

These past oscar telecasts have been terrible. I'd protest too. lol

Al Sharpton is a racist. And he will shake you down and call you a racist if he sees a buck in it. So Selma got snubbed for certain categories. There were a lot of snubs this year at the Oscars. I was pissed Ralph Fiennes did not get a best actor node. Heck there have been LOTS of snubs for great filmmakers and films throughout the history of the Academy. There is no need to cry racism. But Sharpton does not care, he want's the media attention.

And to speak the plain truth Selma was not that good. To me it was the most bipolar movie of the years. Some parts were REALLY good, while other parts were terrible! Certain historical facts were skewed for no reason, and that song at the end of the film was terrible.

Does racism exist, of course it does. But race relations go backwards when Sharpton is involved.

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews

Al Sharpton cracks me up, that wily 'ol git.

__________________