Whenever I see a movie/series starring a minority getting high awards I always think about if it was awarded for actually being good, or just because it had a cast filled with a lesser represented group and juries didn't want to come off as racist.
Admittedly this is a sample size of 1.
[1] The spell checker in Firefox recognises ableist as a valid word where it would not have done so only a few years back. This is not language evolution, it is revolutionary language.
The word you’re looking for is “bigot/bigotry”.
— it’s a secret ballot
— the members of the jury aren’t widely known, as far as I can tell
— they care little for the reputation of the institution itself
— those that care are more likely to hate it for being snubbed in the past
— those that won obviously deserved the price and feel strongly that a meritocracy abhors loyalty
= this is a great chance to really vote with the heart, including settling a few scores with any group you secretly loath especially because “political correctness” forces you to keep it to yourself the rest of the year
Bonus inconsistency:
— there have been all-deaf movies before that didn’t win
Some groups were systematically or implicitly excluded from honors such as the Oscars for centuries. It’s great to see the trend bending towards justice. Unfortunately, they sometimes see their legitimate success undermined by various “but you didn’t really win the price/get hired/become President” strategies.
So… congratulations to being part of the problem, I guess.
Perhaps the last was the second time such a film has been snubbed by the Academy, after "Brokeback Mountain" was infamously passed over by "Crash" in 2005.
I don't think you actually really follow the Oscars so much as complain about a false sense of virtue signaling
Movie, not individual actors. Movies with a cast of only this unfavoured identity class are unlikely to gain any awards.
> The majority of films that have won in the past have been that way too
The past is not now, my comment relates to the here and now ('is unlikely to', not 'was unlikely to'). The obsession with D.I.E [1] is a recent phenomenon.
> I don't think you actually really follow the Oscars
There you are right, I don't. I do read quite a bit about it but I never watched any of those shows, it is just not my thing.
> complain about a false sense of virtue signalling
False? We're talking about the organisation which went full Soviet by proclaiming movies needed to abide to their D.I.E. rules to be considered for academy awards [2] as part of their D.I.E. plan [3]. Read [2] and report back on whether this is anything but virtue signalling.
[1] Diversity, Inclusion, Equity
[2] https://www.oscars.org/news/academy-establishes-representati...
[2] https://www.oscars.org/news/academy-announces-next-phase-equ...