Is TMZ right about Robin Thicke and the BET Awards? - 6.14.2007.1

TMZ.com has just reported on the chance of Mr. Robin Thicke winning the BET Award for either Viewer’s Choice or Best Male categories. While TMZ was a bit smarmy in their comments it is an interesting question.

There is no question that the Oscar Awards made a point of not selecting African Americans for nomination or a win for decades. I spoke about the snubs the Oscars recently made against Dreamgirls and Mr. Eddie Murphy.

“I’m speaking about the omission of Dreamgirls from the Best Picture category. I’d love to hear the justification for this. In 79 years, the total time Oscar Awards have been around, there has never been a leading nominee not also being in Best Picture.”

And

“The difference in what the public feels was a great performance and what the Academy deems award-winning is a vast ocean apart. I’m referring to the loss of Mr. Eddie Murphy. Widely held as the best performance in his acting career, winning several awards leading to this ceremony and then snubbed.”

Similar snubs have happened in music, but that barrier was broken years ago. I recall hearing about advertisments made on behalf of Mr. Elvis Presley, stating that people should buy his version of certain songs and not the ‘colored’ version (I think Hound Dog was one of them). Thankfully those days are long past. Or are they?


Is there a difference in the BET Awards not nominating more White entertainers and that of the Oscars apparent prejudice to Black entertainers? I realize that the BET Awards have nominated White performers before, 2 to be exact, and they did not win. I realize that Mr. Thicke may not win, the competition is strong. Mr. Thicke is up against Akon, Mr. John Legend, Ms. Beyonce Knowles, Ciara and several others. But is this the discrimination that seems to be implied by TMZ?

I can’t say, I don’t watch award shows. In addition I don’t listen to most hip-hop or R&B music these days (as can be guessed by my other posts I’m not a fan of gansta rap). I tend to enjoy classical (love Beethoven) and rock&roll more. [Sadly there are few African American entertainers in rock, which is a shame as I have to believe Living Color, Fishbone, and Mr. Lenny Kravitz are not the full range of what could be offered.] Still this is a question I am wondering about.

Since I don’t know enough to make a comment on one side or the other, I ask what you think. Has the BET Awards acted like the Oscars in restricting who gets nominated? IF they have is that wrong?

This is what I think, what do you think?

The surprise about broadcast television - 3.14.2007.2

The key is the quality of the program. For that matter it is the quality of the medium, whether movies or plays or television, that determines viewability. The FX Network program Thief may not have lead the ratings, but I bet it’s ratings would be on par with or better than half the broadcast television shows on today. Yet broadcast television won’t touch such a show. Even with the fact that the top shows of today get fewer viewers that the middle of the road shows of the 70’s (due to DVD’s, VOD, cable and so forth) and a dirth of programs highlighting this untapped market, executives are holding on to what is a staple of the ‘I wish it was 1950 again’ mentality.

It was that mentality that prevented any African American actor or actress from getting recognition at the Oscar Awards for decades. [Directors as well, notably Mr. Spike Lee for Malcolm X] Thankfully part of that hurdle has been broken, partially, though the slap in the face to Dreamgirls (first movie in 79 years to have the most award nominations and not get nominated for Best picture) and the subsequent snub of Mr. Eddie Murphy highlight the fact that the 98% majority of Oscar voters have not completely seen the light.

It was mentioned in the Yahoo article that Roots is still the most watched mini-series ever. The reasoning given is that it was a special event and thus free of the guiding forces that pertain to broadcast television. Right, how about another heaping spoonful of that stuff. More likely is the fact that Roots was a well acted, well-funded, intelligently written program, based in fact, that had appealled to every African American in the nation as well as non-minorities. Perhaps if there were other well written, produced, and directed programming the same would happen. Instead we see money thrown at sitcoms [mostly ill-conceived, poorly acted, yet virtually the only option, akin to drinking sand because there is no water in my opinion] and starved from dramas where the lead is non-White.

I see it as a barrier that no one likes to talk about. It’s like reparations, or an apology for slavery. Mention it and red flags pop up everywhere and no one wants to listen. The fact that a logical and sound argument for change can be made has no bearing on the reaction. Because the entire reasoning made implies that if non-minorities cannot connect with a lead that is not EXACTLY like them, Mr. Denzel Washington, Mr. Samuel Jackson, Mr. Wesley Snipes, Mr. Will Smith and others could not have leading roles in movies and command $20 million per film. According to the logic presented, maybe they could have one film, out of the group of them, but not a couple of dozen that exists in the real world.

I am angered by the supposition that African Americans can only excel at comedies and as non-lead characters. Black Americans can present more depth than a character that is being, “…laughed with them and at them,” as Mr. Brooks stated. Such a shallow view is undeserved, and if any apology need be made it should be to the actors and the nation for inferring such impotence.

Finished in Part 3...

Screen Actor's Guild Award winners - 1.29.2007.2

Excuse me for a moment as I take a second to give myself a bow. Yes I got 5 out of 7 right – 71% - which I call pretty respectable. If you are wondering why I’m so pleased with myself, of the guesses I made on January 9th for the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards [Bad films and Screen Actors Guild Awards hopefuls - 1.9.2007.1] I came pretty close to a clean sweep.

Not too bad for a regular guy. Perhaps the Oscar Award voters are paying attention. They should be. Considering how they have completely disconnected with the public, again, in not nominating Dreamgirls for Best Picture. I would love to hear the reasoning on why it was not nominated. I will give the SAG Awards the benefit of doubt on Little Miss Sunshine, at least they recognized the talent in Dreamgirls by giving them a nomination for best ensemble (basically best picture).

The snub really irritates me. 8 Oscar nominations, but not best picture. Never in 79 years has the leading nominated film not been a best picture. If it is so highly regarded how can it not also be best picture? This reminds me of the fear in 1993, when Malcolm X was not nominated for best picture, nor Mr. Spike Lee for best director. Yet there was large critical acclaim for the film, it won several awards (lesser ones but still won all the same), and Mr. Denzel Washington was easily recognized for his portrayal. In that case though I think the political commentary of Mr. Malcolm X was too much for the predominantly liberal white Oscar committee. [By the way I think this was the reason Mr. Washington won the Oscar. Often the Oscars will give a deserving actor/actress an award in a later good movie for a phenomenal role they were passed over on previously.]

The excuse for Dreamgirls escapes me. It’s popular, making money, still in movie theaters, well done and critically acclaimed – even before the Oscar nod. The only reason I can see for it to get snubbed as it has is a horrible and deplorable reason. I can only hope that isn’t the reason.

But to get back to the point of this post, I am sure that my winning choices will win the Oscar Awards as well. The choices that apply anyway. My congratulations to the winners, Mr. Hugh Laurie (you really should see him play the title character House. Biting wit and sarcasm matched with intense ability. Well written and balanced by an excellent cast), Mr. Forest Whitaker (a long time favorite of mine. His work in Ghost Dog is especially good, though his role as Idi Amin is even better), Mr. Eddie Murphy (I spoke about him in What does Eddie Murphy make you think of? - 12.22.2006.1), Ms. Jennifer Hudson and all the other winners.

Now let’s see how I do for the Oscars.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Historically bad Oscar omission, great Razzie choices - 1.23.2007.1

Ok, I’m shocked. This took me completely by surprise. Whoever is on the nominating committee for the Oscar’s should be checked for drug use, in my opinion they are acting like they are on crack. Perhaps that’s too harsh but I still think the dramatic move away from tradition is severely unwarranted. Of the few historic moments in Oscar history, this is not the one most might have hoped for.

I’m speaking about the omission of Dreamgirls from the Best Picture category. I’d love to hear the justification for this. In 79 years, the total time Oscar Awards have been around, there has never been a leading nominee not also being in Best Picture. It’s more than an a snub its an insult. Perhaps those that chose felt a Golden Globe win was enough, or that Mr. Martin Scorsese has earned a win. I would hate to think it was a remnant of the ‘old boys club’ mentality.

With 8 nominations I think Dreamgirls deserves the nomination. I am not shocked with the nominations of Mr. Eddie Murphy and Ms. Jennifer Hudson. I had picked them earlier in the month to win the Screen Actors Awards and the Globes. I feel Mr. Murphy will get the win, as he has had many films over the years and most have been well liked. In addition it’s time that recognition be given to his ability, as I mentioned in December he has played more characters in a single film more times than any other actor to my knowledge. Mr. Murphy’s current portrayal is just the feather in a cap of a career filled with memorable roles.

Sadly, I don’t think Ms. Hudson will win for the same reason that Mr. Scorsese, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Forest Whitaker will win. They all have a body of work with many powerful performances behind them. Mr. Jamie Foxx has already won, deservedly for Ray, and Mr. Will Smith has been nominated before.

I will say that it is interesting to note how many deserving African American actors are getting noticed for the roles they should be noticed for, since the win by Mr. Denzel Washington. After decades of being ignored, en masse, it’s refreshing to see the change. Still I think Dreamgirls is being affected by the same thing that hit Mr. Spike Lee’s Malcolm X, it’s a subject the Academy doesn’t want to look at.

On the other side of the movie industry, there are the Razzie Awards. How they were able to whittle down the numerous losers from last year it’s hard to say. One pick I had thankfully forgotten was Little Man. Mr. Keenen Ivory Wayans is a great director, and his comedic instinct is usually on the mark. Still there is only so much that can be done with material like the stuff of that movie. Then again it was a far better film than the forgettable Basic Instinct 2.

But it was a bad year for big names overall. Many of the normally steady actors made choices I have to imagine were just for the money being offered. Mr. Robin Williams, Mr. Tim Allen, Mr. Nicolas Cage all had films that just didn’t match up to the films they usually work in. Well anyone can make a mistake from time to time. Of course the people greenlighting films like Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector, The Shaggy Dog (remake), and the multitude of needless sub-par remakes [mentioned in my recap of the worst films of 2006] get it wrong far too often. There should be Razzie’s for worst greenlight, most remakes okayed without any idea what the original was, and most likely to buy an ice cube in Alaska during a snowstorm in winter (executives and movie companies only).

This is what I think, what do you think?