Leisure | 30/Male

From Hattie McDaniel to Mo’Nique: Black nominees more likely to win Oscar

By: Isaiah Webster III

02-21-2012

While it’s true that African-American actors lag far behind their white counterparts in securing Academy Award nominations, it’s also true that black nominees have a slightly higher winning percentage, according to an analysis conducted by 30/Male.

With less than a week to go until the 84th Academy Awards, observers are wondering if Viola Davis (“The Help”) and Octavia Spencer (“The Help”) will become the next two African-Americans to win Academy Awards. If both women win, they would become the 13th and 14th African-Americans to win an Oscar for acting. Hattie McDaniel (“Gone with the Wind”) was 1st, and Mo’Nique (“Precious”) was 12th.

When looking at African-Americans and their history with the Oscars, one must consider two distinct eras: pre-1990 and post-1990. Between 1927 and 1989, blacks won just three Oscars for acting; but between 1990 and 2011, they won nine — three times as many in a third of the time. An analysis of the entire 84-year history of the Academy Awards show that black and non-black actors have roughly the same 20 percent chance of winning an award once nominated. But an analysis of African-American nominees since 1990 show they are more likely to win in the current era.

According to Oscar.com, in the 84-year history of the Academy Awards, black actors have scored 61 nominations and 12 wins. If you exclude the two nominations pending this year, black actors have a winning percentage of 20.3 percent. In that same 84-year span, non-black actors have scored 1,601 nominations and 320 wins, for a winning percentage of 19.9 percent. Statistically, the difference in those percentages is insignificant, but most people might be surprised to know that black nominees actually do that well.

However, since 1990, black actors have received 33 nominations and won 9 times, for a winning percentage of 27 percent. (Again, these figures exclude the two pending nominations for Davis and Spencer this year.) Since 1990, non-black nominees won the Oscar 24 percent of the time.

The bottom line is clear: over the entire history of the Academy, black actor nominees are slightly better at winning the Oscar. And since 1990, black actors are clearly better positioned to win an Academy Award once they are nominated.

Despite this truth, the Motion Picture Academy has always fought the perception that it snubs black performances and black films. The Academy has even been criticized for the black performances that it chooses to recognize. For example, some observers frowned with Denzel Washington finally won best actor in 2002 for playing a villain instead of a good guy in “Training Day.” Though McDaniel was the first black person to win an Oscar way back in 1940, some detractors pointed out that she won for playing “Mammy” in “Gone with the Wind.” And there was some degree of outrage that the Academy gave Halle Berry an Oscar for “Monster’s Ball,” a film in which her character falls in love with a white redneck from a racist family.

These criticisms stem from a belief that the Academy does not like to recognize black actors playing positive, strong black characters. In other words, some people say that the Academy is fine with giving black actors Oscars, as long as they are portraying villains, maids and other unsavory characters. Never mind that there is nothing wrong with being a maid or that it would have been unrealistic to have McDaniel in any other role given the time period, these type of criticisms persist. They persist even though blacks have won the Oscar for some very strong roles, including Jennifer Hudson (“Dreamgirls”), Whoopi Goldberg (“Ghost”), Jamie Foxx (“Ray”) and Morgan Freeman (“Million Dollar Baby”).

Not only are these types of criticisms wrong, but they are unfair to the actors. If Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer both win this year, they will have won for playing maids in “The Help.” Why would we focus on the fact that they portrayed maids instead of focusing on the fact that they were better than all other actresses in 2011? I believe that Davis and Spencer gave extraordinary performances worthy of Academy Awards, and quite frankly, I don’t care the motive behind Oscar voters who agree with that sentiment.

The Academy shouldn’t be criticized for honoring black actors, but Hollywood as a whole should certainly be criticized for not casting more black actors in leading roles. No matter how good they are at their craft, black actors will tell you that there simply are not enough roles to go around; and this truth is far more substantive than bickering over whether Denzel Washington should have gotten his lead actor win for “Malcolm X” or “Training Day.”

There have been some ironic moments for blacks and the Oscars, too. For example, black actors usually win Oscars in pairs. Halle Berry and Denzel Washington both won in 2002; Morgan Freeman and Jamie Foxx both won in 2005; and Jennifer Hudson and Forrest Whitaker both won in 2007. Put another way, of the 12 all-time wins for black actors, 6 of them came on just 3 nights!

One final odd truth about blacks and the Oscars: Will Smith has been twice nominated for best actor. He lost both times…to a black actor! (Smith lost to Washington in 2002 and to Whitaker in 2007.) What are the odds of a black best actor nominee losing the award to another black nominee in the same category? It’s actually extremely slim, unless your name is Will Smith.

30/Male marks third anniversary

By: Isaiah Webster III

02-05-2012

Leisure

Thank God; I’ve made it through the Terrible Twos! Today marks the third anniversary of this blog; I started 30/Male on February 5, 2009. And more than 1,000 entries later, the site is still going strong and being visited by more and more people across the United States.

In truth, I started this blog as a writing outlet for myself. Whether or not others would find my commentary amusing was just a bonus. But as it turns out, people actually like reading my observations on politics, entertainment and sex!

Thanks for visiting the site and keep following as things promise only to get better in Year Three.

Marriage equality expands to Washington State

By: Isaiah Webster III

02-01-2012

Leisure, Politics

The Washington State Senate passed a same-sex marriage bill just moments ago on a 28-21 vote. The House is expected to easily pass the bill as well, and Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire (D) has already said she will sign the bill into law. This means Washington will become the 7th state to support marriage equality, and the first state on the West coast!

Congratulations to the people of Washington State! Now, just 43 more states to go!

Seriously, it’s time to stop the glitter-bombing

By: Isaiah Webster III

02-01-2012

Leisure, Politics

Oh, dear God. I’d rather walk over hot coals than have to defend Mitt Romney, but here it goes anyway. Romney does not deserve to be glitter-bombed; it’s an assault that the presidential candidate should not have to endure. In fact, no one should be subjected to glitter-bombings. It’s a stupid, ineffective and violent form of protest.

In case you missed it, Romney was glitter bombed today while on his way to a stage in Minnesota. Other Republican presidential candidates have been glitter-bombed in the last year too, including Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann.

In theory, glitter-bombing is when gay activists toss glitter on anti-gay public figures in response to their discriminatory stances. But this rogue form of protest has expanded to include anyone who dares speak their mind. Gay advocate Dan Savage was glitter bombed recently because he supposedly dissed the transgender community. By that standard, President Obama is certainly deserving of a glitter-bombing for opposing marriage equality!

But the broader point is that these glitter-bombings are just plain silly. And most importantly, they accomplish absolutely nothing. Why not draw these figures into a conversation and force them to defend their positions? Why not start a blog about how hateful Mitt Romney is? Why not collect money to help President Obama defeat Romney? Any of those forms of protest would be more effective than tossing glitter on someone and then getting dragged out of the rally by the Secret Service.

One final point. Glitter-bombing is an assault. When you throw something onto someone else without provocation, it’s an assault. It really does not matter that the substance is harmless. No one has the right to throw crap into someone’s face just because they disagree with them! So please, for the sake of common fucking sense, can we just put glitter-bombing to rest?

Chris Christie, the contrarian

By: Isaiah Webster III

01-25-2012

Leisure, Politics

How ironic that my blogging hiatus ends with the same person it began with, Chris Christie.

When I lasted updated this blog on January 9, I noted that the New Jersey legislature had decided to push a same-sex marriage bill even though Gov. Christie (R) had once threatened to veto such a bill. On Tuesday, the governor made it abundantly clear that he would indeed veto such a bill and he took the issue a step further — saying that the issue should be decided by referendum by the voters of New Jersey. Even though polls show that 53% of voters in New Jersey favor same-sex marriage, Christie knows that passage is never assured and he does not want to use his own political capital to do the right thing.

Though Christie is somewhat of a moderate, he has ambitions to one day become president, and conservatives within his party would never nominate a governor who signed same-sex marriage into law. So Christie pitifully punts the issue elsewhere.

Christie’s announcement on marriage came one day after he nominated an openly-gay man to the New Jersey Supreme Court. Bruce Harris would be the first openly-gay man on the state Supreme Court if confirmed.

So, this begs the question, how can Chris Christie be so progressive and open-minded on Monday, yet so closed-minded and foolish on Tuesday? It’s called politics. It seems that Christie has adopted the Obama model, which is to do just enough for the gays to avoid being called bigoted, yet refusing to extend the civil right of marriage. It’s the hallmark of a spineless politician.

As I’ve argued here many times, marriage is a civil right, and those who deny Americans civil rights are being discriminatory. It’s really as simple as that. Unfortunately, Barack Obama and Chris Christie are in the same discriminatory boat.

One final point. Republicans (and even some Democrats) always want marriage equality to be decided by the voters, instead of by legislatures. They argue that if the issue is so important and polarizing, then it should be decided by voters. This argument is nonsense for two reasons.

First, America is a representative democracy. This means that the people elect representatives to make tough decisions for them. Under this system of government, “the people” actually make almost no decisions directly. Keep in mind that in the United States, voters don’t even pick their president, the electors of the Electoral College have that responsibility. Politicians are OK with representatives raising taxes, starting wars and impeaching leaders, but ensuring civil rights is “too important” to leave to legislatures. That’s bullshit.

The second reason Christie’s argument is nonsense is because civil rights are at issue here. Since equality is already ensured in the Constitution, “the people” do not need to weigh in on civil rights matters. It’s already decided law that people should be treated equally. Under this established law, the majority can not discriminate against a minority. In fact, laws are meant to protect minorities from the “tyranny of the majority.”

In the 1960s, when our country was struggling with civil rights for blacks, it was determined that such laws would not be put to a vote in the South. If segregation had been put to a vote, blacks would still be sitting in the back of the bus and drinking from “colored” water fountains. Lawmakers decided unilaterally that blacks were entitled to equal rights, and that voting on such things was out of the question.

So, what’s changed? Why would we allow voters to decide if gays should have equal rights?

Equality does not come when the electorate decides it’s time. Equality comes about when our leaders, who are empowered by the voters, summon the courage to appeal to our hopes and not our fears. Equality comes about when visionaries see inequality and speak out against it forcefully.

Lyndon Johnson was a visionary; he was a forceful leader for change in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Chris Christie is a contrarian; a political coward unwilling to stake out a position that might be difficult, even when civil rights are at stake. Only when our champion emerges, with the political will to fight for what’s right, will we get full equality.