From Lisa Resper‘s 7.29 CNN story titled “This Year’s Emmy Nominees Are Pretty Diverse, But Not Everyone Is Happy“:
“In introducing the nomination ceremony on Tuesday, Television Academy chairman and chief executive officer Frank Scherma touched on the extraordinary times we are living in amid a global pandemic and a cultural reckoning with racism. ‘This year we are also bearing witness to one of the greatest fights for social justice in history,’ he said. ‘And it is our duty to use this medium for change.’
“Viewers will be watching to see if that change extends to not just nominations, but also wins for people of color.”
HE to Select Friendos: Do you think yesterday’s Emmy noms included sufficient numbers of POC filmmakers and performers? Put more bluntly, were there any POC creators and performers who didn’t get nominated? Perhaps a few but none that I noticed. And what about the trans community along with the LGBTQs?
“Seriously — the Emmy noms represented such an avalanche in terms of virtue-signalling ‘play it safe’ p.c. theology…such an emphasis upon POC and LGBTQ contributions that one is tempted to ask, ‘Is there any interest these days in determining the finest work being created, or is it ALL about kowtowing to the current socio-political SJW correct-think?’
“Did you notice what the top film of 2020 was as of last month, according to Jordan Ruimy’s critics poll? Spike Lee’s Da 5 Bloods. What does that tell you?
“HE reaction: ‘Was the nation’s recent cultural and political uprising (George Floyd protests, Black Lives Matter, a repressive response on Donald Trump‘s part) a factor in critics supporting Lee’s film, especially given Lee’s artful, montage-like editing that blends past and present turmoils? That’s my suspicion but you tell me.’
“My actual suspicion is that the critics in Ruimy’s poll were submitting to the moment, or more precisely the progressive imperative. They’re playing it safe because we’re living through a climate of terror, and nobody wants to be accused of anything, much less go to the guillotine.
“You can count on your fingers how many critics are telling it really straight and true these days, and how many are (a) reviewing films positively because the films say the right things or espouse the right kind of p.c. values, and (b) reviewing films somewhat negatively because they say the wrong things, etc.
“In the old pre-COVID days the percentage of critics who could be counted upon to state opinions without regard to political correctness was fairly low. Now it’s even lower.”
Friendo #1: “I’m sorry, Jeff, but I don’t subscribe to your theory. I think people can spot a phony. If a critic is consistently pulling his or her punches for whatever reason, people will notice. I think most critics understand this reality and ignore it at their peril.”
Friendo #2: “Heh-heh….it never ends. ‘Some on social media complained that while Billy Porter, who is black, was nominated for lead actor in a drama series for Pose, none of the central trans actors on the show received a nod.’ — Lisa Respers, CNN.com.”
Friendo #3: “It makes a horrible kind of sense that the awards-industrial complex would now be obsessed with this. Because what the wokesters have been fighting for over the last two months is…a revolution of signifiers! Something that can make them feel good about their white trust-fund selves. (Talk about white saviors!) So yes, awards are now going to be all about virtue signaling and virtuous griping.”
Friendo #2: “If an entire generation is raised on the idea that image is everything, then the current image is about being measured by how un-white the entertainment community is. This is their way of telling their consumers exactly what Coca Cola, Taco Bell, Target and every other corporation did when they were forced to issue support of BLM. Image matters and nothing else. I just want to go live in a cabin and wait it out.”
Friendo #3: “And, of course, caring so much about image, elevating it to such an insane degree over the actual realities of people’s lives (“Pose should have gotten two more Emmy nominations! It’s a moral outrage!”), is the patronizing apex — the very quintessence — of racism.”
Friendo #2: “The level of denial about what’s going on is shocking. No one will say anything because no one wants to be called a racist or transphobic. And indeed, once you stop speaking the [lefty] doctrine you are either abused or ignored.
“But how can people say that it’s okay for everyone else to celebrate their race, and separate themselves by their race except white people? That is the very definition of segregation and racism, except it’s coming from the other side. It is surreal madness.”
Friendo #4: “I believe you make several valid points about critics giving favorable reviews for political reasons and feeling pressure to say nice things about mediocre films. etc. But many have been doing this for years. Plus I don’t know enough about the Emmys to have an opinion on them.”
Friendo #3: “What’s also shocking, from my point of view, is the completely ‘progressive’ embrace of the idea that Twitter and YouTube can now suppress ideas…because those ideas distort reality and are ‘harmful.’ Huh?
“First of all, that’s flagrantly unconstitutional. But it’s also totally selective and hypocritical. The right distorts reality, but so, at times, does the left. Including The New York Times.
“So who gets to decide? Answer: The corporation, aka Big Brother. And every ‘liberal’ voice is for it! They’re all for the idea that Mark Zuckerberg is somehow The Enemy because he’s for not regulating speech.”
Friendo #2: “That Evergreen thing you posted was horrifying. To watch how a professor’s opinion turns into violence against black lives, danger on campus, and pressure to break every rule to address traumatized students who could not be in a classroom with him. That shit is about to overtake every area of American life because the Democrats are the ones who dominate culture, education, news.”