Scarlett Johannson Quits Movie

[Hards Alumni]

No, because the only people that will complete about white male representation are white males.

For centuries, white males have dictated the direction of virtually everything on this planet. From governance to storytelling to education, virtually all facets of western civilization have been dominated by white male cis voices.

I understand it's difficult for white males that are used to dominating every discussion to take a back seat, but the reality is for centuries, the only thing white males haven't taken the lead in is listening. So in terms of representation, it is more important to allow other stories to be told and allow marginalized communities to both tell their stories and to take the lead in the telling of those stories.

And I don't mean to single you out, but I think it's important that white males (like myself) spend some more time listening than talking.

I'd say Nanette on Netflix is a great place to start if talking to actual marginalized people in person is too tough.

The problem with this argument is that there is an assumption that this movie even gets made with a transgender actor as the lead.  Which is better?  No movie since there is no transgender lead?  Or movie with ScarJo as lead so the movie gets made and shines a light on marginalized people?

[mu03eng]

No, because the only people that will complete about white male representation are white males.

For centuries, white males have dictated the direction of virtually everything on this planet. From governance to storytelling to education, virtually all facets of western civilization have been dominated by white male cis voices.

I understand it's difficult for white males that are used to dominating every discussion to take a back seat, but the reality is for centuries, the only thing white males haven't taken the lead in is listening. So in terms of representation, it is more important to allow other stories to be told and allow marginalized communities to both tell their stories and to take the lead in the telling of those stories.

And I don't mean to single you out, but I think it's important that white males (like myself) spend some more time listening than talking.

I'd say Nanette on Netflix is a great place to start if talking to actual marginalized people in person is too tough.

You're kind of preaching to the converted here. Your point is absolutely correct but I don't think anyone was in opposition to your position and certainly not me. The trans community should be listened to about their concerns, but we're not even remotely debating that.

[brewcity77]

77% of Americans (including White Hispanics) are Caucasian.  https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045217

That interpretation is straight up racist manipulation of facts. It is an attempt at saying that as white people are less of a majority than they once were, it's okay to assimilate a Hispanic culture that has long been and continues to be marginalized and oppressed. Racist AF.

[brewcity77]

You're kind of preaching to the converted here. Your point is absolutely correct but I don't think anyone was in opposition to your position and certainly not me. The trans community should be listened to about their concerns, but we're not even remotely debating that.

I recognize that, your post was just the most convenient to quote. Good for making the statement I wanted to make, but not at all really thinking of you as the primary audience.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

That interpretation is straight up racist manipulation of facts. It is an attempt at saying that as white people are less of a majority than they once were, it's okay to assimilate a Hispanic culture that has long been and continues to be marginalized and oppressed. Racist AF.

Which, if we all didn't already know it was Chicos, would prove it all by itself.

[WarriorDad]

That interpretation is straight up racist manipulation of facts. It is an attempt at saying that as white people are less of a majority than they once were, it's okay to assimilate a Hispanic culture that has long been and continues to be marginalized and oppressed. Racist AF.

I'm sorry you view it that point.  There is nothing racial about it, certainly no intent. First, Hispanic is not a race, so I'm not sure how this can be deemed racial. A common mistake where people think Hispanic = race, it does not.
 https://www.denverpost.com/2017/03/17/despite-how-the-census-bureau-now-treats-it-hispaniclatino-is-not-a-race/

NY Times, Washington Post and Pew have done articles how Hispanics are starting to choose white as their ethnicity more and more.  http://www.pewhispanic.org/2017/12/20/hispanic-identity-fades-across-generations-as-immigrant-connections-fall-away/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/02/02/a-new-report-says-more-hispanic-identity-is-fading-is-that-really-good-for-america/?utm_term=.3088be8a20ba

My reference to the data was to show the rough correlation between the population and the user's stats on how roles are portrayed by various people.  I linked the entire data set, the white Hispanic and also white non-Hispanc were both listed there.  Nothing was hidden. Readers can make their own interpretations if they wish, but both numbers are in line with the distribution.

[Benny B]

I'm sorry you view it that point.  There is nothing racial about it, certainly no intent. First, Hispanic is not a race, so I'm not sure how this can be deemed racial. A common mistake where people think Hispanic = race, it does not.
 https://www.denverpost.com/2017/03/17/despite-how-the-census-bureau-now-treats-it-hispaniclatino-is-not-a-race/

NY Times, Washington Post and Pew have done articles how Hispanics are starting to choose white as their ethnicity more and more.  http://www.pewhispanic.org/2017/12/20/hispanic-identity-fades-across-generations-as-immigrant-connections-fall-away/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/02/02/a-new-report-says-more-hispanic-identity-is-fading-is-that-really-good-for-america/?utm_term=.3088be8a20ba

My reference to the data was to show the rough correlation between the population and the user's stats on how roles are portrayed by various people.  I linked the entire data set, the white Hispanic and also white non-Hispanc were both listed there.  Nothing was hidden. Readers can make their own interpretations if they wish, but both numbers are in line with the distribution.

In fairness, Hoopalots has a point here... Hispanic is not a race (as that term has come to be used today), it refers to people hailing from Spanish-speaking countries regardless of their race.  Neither is Latino which refers people from Latin American countries, including Brazil.  And both terms are generally used only within the U.S... for the most part, these terms are not used in other countries.  So someone Brazilian-born living/working in the U.S. is referred to as a 'Latino' within the U.S., but that same person is referred to by people in other countries simply as a 'Brazilian living/working in the U.S.'  And if that Brazilian lives/works in Brazil, then all countries simply refer to that person as 'Brazilian.'  Likewise, someone of European ancestry who hails from Costa Rica would be known in the U.S. as Latino or Hispanic despite the fact that his/her skin might be as white as North Dakota in February.

Point is, the original definition of race was based strictly on shared physical characteristics which - not surprisingly - correlated strongly to ethnicity, culture, and/or language.  Over time, the definition has been whittled down to skin color as races began to integrate and shared physical attributes have become less distinct.  But the correlations remained even as those numbers went from 1 to 0, and as such, many people today wrongly associate race with ethnicity, culture and/or language.  Referring to the "Jewish or Hebrew Race" is probably one of the most ubiquitous examples of this misconception... there is no such thing as the Hebrew Race, as there are no shared physical traits amongst Jews. 

Ironic as it may be, I think the efforts in our society to promote "racial equality" falls short of achieving true diversity and quality amongst peoples insomuch as "racial equality" implies that we need not make any effort to embrace peoples who "look like us," which as Brew indicates, are just as - and in some cases, even more - marginalized as those of other races.  Whether it's a Mexican who "doesn't look Mexican" or the trans- co-worker who reluctantly puts on a shirt & tie instead of a pantsuit (or vice versa) everyday, oppression knows not the boundaries of race.

But Americans are too lazy to do anything but lump people together in as few boxes as possible (case in point: our two-party political system) as homogenizing as it may be... so, of course, we have this tendency to group people by "race," of which there are really only a handful, despite the fact that if we took the time to jot down all of the marginalized groups in our global society, not only would there be several score of them, but every race would be represented.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

The word "race" was originally used to distinguish people of different languages, then later to distinguish people of different nationalities.  It wasn't until the 17th century that "race" was used in reference to physical traits.

So the "Hebrew race" is an old reference to a group of people that speak the same language; that being the Hebrew language.

[MU82]

But Americans are too lazy to do anything but lump people together in as few boxes as possible

Although I agreed with most of your post, Benny Boy, I had to laugh at this unintentionally ironic statement.

[jutaw22mu]

Although I agreed with most of your post, Benny Boy, I had to laugh at this unintentionally ironic statement.

Hahahahahaha good find! 

[D'Lo Brown]

How is this a 6 page thread. Not even transgender people care that much. I'm going to assume that the same points were consistently rehashed in regular intervals... With the same crowd baiting the same people.

[mu_hilltopper]

...I'm going to assume that the same points were consistently rehashed in regular intervals... With the same crowd baiting the same people.

Around here, we call that Tuesday.  Welcome to MUScoop.

[Benny B]

In other words, one can’t help but to wonder if a lot of the accolades for this seem more to do with social commentary, the Academy atoning for its white guilt and/or recent history of exclusion, or worst case, along the lines of “hey, you should get an award for doing a great job on your movie despite being a black guy.”

Aaaaaaannnnd, it turns out to be the worst case scenario.  Way to go, Academy... with that level of closet racism, you’re now the UW Madison of the arts world. 

[CTWarrior]

Aaaaaaannnnd, it turns out to be the worst case scenario.  Way to go, Academy... with that level of closet racism, you’re now the UW Madison of the arts world.

What did I miss?

[warriorchick]

What did I miss?

Here you go:

https://slate.com/culture/2018/08/the-oscars-new-best-popular-film-category-is-an-insult-to-its-newly-diverse-membership.html

[StillAWarrior]

Here you go:

https://slate.com/culture/2018/08/the-oscars-new-best-popular-film-category-is-an-insult-to-its-newly-diverse-membership.html

Interesting.  I'm not necessarily disputing Slate's claim that the addition of the new category was met with "near-universal derision" (because I haven't followed it closely enough to know if that is true), but I do find it funny that the hotlink for the "near-universal derision" comment goes to another Slate article.

Personally, I see no real problem with creating another category to recognize the "best" of the blockbuster films.  Is the suggestion in Benny's post that this somehow makes me a closet racist?  I honestly have no idea why.  Can someone explain, please?

[CTWarrior]

Here you go:

https://slate.com/culture/2018/08/the-oscars-new-best-popular-film-category-is-an-insult-to-its-newly-diverse-membership.html

Thanks for the link, Warriorchick.

I suppose it is tone deaf to do it this year, but I think a popular movie category is a good idea.  Frankly, IMHO, The Black Panther is no better than at least a half dozen other Marvel movies.  They didn't get nods for best picture and nobody got bent out of shape. 

I think a popular movie category is actually a good idea because it might goose ratings of the show.  The Oscar winners the past few years don't resonate with the general public and will be forgotten in short order, while stuff like Iron Man and Captain America and The Black Panther will be evergreens.  I was going to write half of the best picture winners are pretentious twaddle, but looking at them since 2000 there are a lot of entertaining or just really good movies in there.  But a lot of those movies are just a big yawn to the movie going public.  Adding a category for movies that people actually like doesn't seem like a bad idea.

[Benny B]

What did I miss?

Two schools of thought here: 1) ABC (owned by Disney) pressured the Academy to add the Best Popular Film category for ratings purposes with the ulterior motive of benefiting its own studio (that produced such blockbusters such as Incredibles 2 and Black Panther, which are now the favorites to win the inaugural award) and/or 2) the Academy created a "separate, but equal" category for Black Panther to win.

Now, it is quite likely that this all started with the former, but the concern is that instead of pushing back on ABC's demands, the Academy acquiesced because it provided a very convenient excuse for the latter.

Whether or not Black Panther deserves to be nominated (or win) Best Picture is pretty much irrelevant now... in fact, it seems the Academy itself is the only one bathing in irrelevance.

[brewcity77]

Personally, I see no real problem with creating another category to recognize the "best" of the blockbuster films.  Is the suggestion in Benny's post that this somehow makes me a closet racist?  I honestly have no idea why.  Can someone explain, please?

I don't think it's strictly a racist thing, but it's a way of saying "your film is good, but not REAL best picture good." It would likely over time become a category with the following nominees every year:

• Best Marvel Movie
• Best Animated Blockbuster
• Best Non-Superhero Summer Blockbuster
• Best Christmas Blockbuster (Think Harry Potter or LOTR)
• Any other top-5 movie in terms of earnings that doesn't get a best picture nod

The thing is, popular movies have won best picture before, and not that long ago. Titanic, Gladiator, and LOTR: Return of the King (the worst of the trilogy) were all popular movies.

I think where the race thing comes in is they just happen to be creating the category in a year when a popular movie that also evokes a lot of racial feelings, Black Panther, is in the zeitgeist. Had they done this a decade ago, it might not have been as big a deal. But choosing to create this category right at the moment a film like Black Panther is thought to be about to break through looks pretty sketchy.

Also...would films be precluded from winning both? Would a modern day Titanic no longer be eligible for Best Picture because it did too well at the box office?

[MU82]

I'm sorry you view it that point.  There is nothing racial about it, certainly no intent. First, Hispanic is not a race, so I'm not sure how this can be deemed racial. A common mistake where people think Hispanic = race, it does not.
 https://www.denverpost.com/2017/03/17/despite-how-the-census-bureau-now-treats-it-hispaniclatino-is-not-a-race/

NY Times, Washington Post and Pew have done articles how Hispanics are starting to choose white as their ethnicity more and more.  http://www.pewhispanic.org/2017/12/20/hispanic-identity-fades-across-generations-as-immigrant-connections-fall-away/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/02/02/a-new-report-says-more-hispanic-identity-is-fading-is-that-really-good-for-america/?utm_term=.3088be8a20ba

My reference to the data was to show the rough correlation between the population and the user's stats on how roles are portrayed by various people.  I linked the entire data set, the white Hispanic and also white non-Hispanc were both listed there.  Nothing was hidden. Readers can make their own interpretations if they wish, but both numbers are in line with the distribution.

So this means one can go on an anti-Hispanic rant and not deserve to be labeled a racist?

I know of at least one tanning-booth regular who would be very happy to hear that.

[WarriorDad]

I hope it happens, he would be great.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-idris-elba-as-james-bond-rumor-is-going-around-again-and-people-are-pumped_us_5b6d944ee4b0530743c9489e

[Jockey]

I hope it happens, he would be great.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-idris-elba-as-james-bond-rumor-is-going-around-again-and-people-are-pumped_us_5b6d944ee4b0530743c9489e

wow..... this might be enough to fool us. You're not chicos!! 

[WarriorDad]

Elba is fantastic in Mandela and Molly's Game.   I'm not into the Avenger movies that much, but he appears in them.  Of course, Stringer Bell in the Wire.

He would be great.