The Oscars Are Bad, Even When They're Good
How the Academy teases diversity to manipulate us.
On January 15, 2015, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced their nominations for the 87th Annual Academy Awards, a slate of creators so ethnically singular, it made Friends look like the United Nations.
Most notably, every single one of the twenty nominated actors were white. Upset social media users quickly united under cultural commentator April Reign's #OscarsSoWhite hashtag to express frustration that, in an era when 49% of moviegoers were people of color, 100% of nominees were not. The Academy offered no official response. The following year, they again nominated twenty white actors. The #OscarsSoWhite movement continued. (It's worth noting that, perhaps as a consolation prize, Mexican filmmaker Alejandro González Iñárritu won for Best Directing both years.)
But by 2017, things seemed to have changed. Seven actors of color were nominated. Fences, Moonlight, and Hidden Figures were all nominated for Best Picture. Then, in spite of a clerical error almost as suspicious as the Iowa caucuses, Moonlight was awarded Best Picture. The voices of the people, it seemed, had been heard.
And then, in 2019, Green Book won. The outrage was palpable. How could this condescending, white savior narrative have won? Weren't we past this sort of self-congratulatory white narratives? And yet, here we find ourselves in 2020, with only two actors of color nominated (and two Scaretts Johanssens), an all-male Directing category, and—with the notable exception of Taika Waititi and Bong Joon-Ho—most Best Picture nominations going to white filmmakers as well.
Some have speculated that this is an overcorrection, that the Academy feels they've done the necessary work of diversifying. Others feel that it is a cultural regression spurred by the rise of Trumpism. The real answer is much simpler: This was the plan all along. It's what the Academy has always done. It's a multi-year cycle, designed to keep progressive moviegoers thinking that the Oscars are relevant, while keeping their conservative base placated. And we fall for it every time.
It goes like this: The Academy spends two to five years nominating the usual pablum—mostly white, high-budget dramas (directed and produced by white people as well). These films are already mandatory viewing—everyone's talking about them, so you have to see them. During these years, a handful of lower-budget films with more diverse casts get nominated in order to temporarily stave off criticism and prevent the nominations from being entirely homogenous. These films rarely win the most prestigious categories—an indie film might win, for example, Costume Design.
Then comes a special year (or two) in which The Oscars Are Different. Smaller movies with a message are nominated. Diverse casts are celebrated. The public raises a collective eyebrow in contemplative appreciation, as if watching a Super Bowl commercial featuring an interracial couple. This is followed by either a return to homogeneity or a self-congratulatory year in which—having temporarily convinced the public that they have cured racism or sexism, or that they suddenly understand art—the Academy gives awards to heavy-handed simplistic narratives that mimic the intensity of art films without any of the nuance.
Take, for example, the early years of the millenium. 2000 and 2001 saw only three actors of color nominated, with the massive-budget Gladiator taking home five awards in 2001. In 2002, Denzel Washington and Halle Berry took home Best Actor/Actress, with many nominations for smaller-budget films such as Gosford Park, In the Bedroom, Mulholland Drive, and Monster's Ball. 2003 saw only one actor of color nominated and few small-budget films, leading the way for the self-congratulatory year: Crash and its condescending approach to racial politics took home Best Picture in 2004.
This technique is used to suppress not only ethnic diversity, but gender diversity, progressive politics, and independent filmmakers. These are, of course, interrelated, as those shut out by the gatekeepers of mainstream cinema have historically found a home in independent cinema. In earlier eras of ethnic ubiquity, it was used to suppress artistic, independent filmmaking—the playbook was written long before #OscarsSoWhite presented a new challenge.
If the Academy has made progress, it's almost impossible to observe. Halle Berry remains the only woman of color to win Best Actress. Only one woman (Kathryn Bigelow in 2009) has ever won Best Director (and only five have even been nominated). Only three actors of Asian descent (one of whom was a woman — Miyoshi Umeki in 1958) and one actor of Arabic descent (Rami Malek in 2019) have won Oscars for acting. Precisely zero indiginous people have won Oscars for acting.
The trouble is: It’s impossible to say that the Academy Awards don't matter. A nomination guarantees an extended theater run, increasing profits and the likelihood of success for the artists' future projects. And winning an award provides those benefits in even greater abundance. This is, after all, why the Academy Awards exist in the first place. They are a mechanism by which the businessmen of the film industry can increase profits for one another.
Money isn't the only way they keep us engaged. It's the prestige, the reputation, the reach. An Oscar-winning film is guaranteed to be seen by a broader audience. Especially in the case of smaller independent films, it is an opportunity to reach a part of the populace that would have never considered or even heard their message. Representation matters—we know this to be true. But they know it, too. And they know that by keeping it a finite resource they can make sure it remains precious and valuable. Marginalized people can't avoid needing to be seen—it's too important, even if it comes from a system that keeps them marginalized.
Filmmakers who have been excluded by the Hollywood system have long found alternative modes of reaching an audience — art house theaters, film festivals, and, most recently, streaming platforms that risk less and benefit more from distributing a varied array of programming. But the Academy Awards remains a legitimacy-donning monolith, the mainstream validator of quality for much of America. And, again, they maintain that status not only by catering to the middle of the bell curve but by periodically re-enticing the fringes.
The question remains of what can be done to break this cycle. Social media shaming, and before that, sternly worded blog posts (and before that, damning editorials) have failed to produce lasting results, instead feeding into that very cycle that inspired them. A large-scale boycott, large enough to significantly affect advertising returns, is unlikely to materialize. There is simply too much money to be made, so there is plenty of money to be spent ensuring that every late-night host, news anchor, culture blogger, entertainment reporter, and even politician is talking about it.
And so, we have to watch, because, again, everyone is watching. That's the tautology that has kept the Oscars relevant for nearly a century. Even worse today: It’s not enough to watch. Viewers must also keep a running commentary of outrage and mediocre jokes on social media, providing a free source of advertisement (and ruining Twitter for any abstainers for at least 24 hours). And those who don't actually sit through the three hour slog of self-satisfaction will still read about the winners the next day, making plans to see them while they're still in theatres.
Non-participation is only useful for self-preservation. The only way to make an (admittedly minor) difference is to actively support the kind of cinema that's being suppressed. Buy independent films instead of just watching what's on Netflix. Share lesser-known films with friends. If you must see an Oscar winner in theatres, buy a ticket for a movie that was snubbed instead, then sneak in. And this Sunday, do yourself a favor: Slip the three-hour commercial and watch Dope, the best movie of 2015 (it wasn't nominated).
- Golden Globes 2020 Nominations: 5 Surprises And 5 Snubs - Popdust ›
- "Parasite" Needs to Win Best Picture If the Oscars Want to Stay ... ›
- Period Films Lead the 2020 Oscars Conversation - Popdust ›
- #ByeOscars: Media Outlets Are Finally Starting to Boycott the Oscars ... ›
- The Strangest Moments from the 2021 Oscars - Popdust ›
- The Oscars Needed Parasite Way More Than Parasite Needed the Oscars - Popdust ›
- How to Stream All the 2020 Oscar Winning Movies - Popdust ›
POPULAR NEWS
Stephen King's Tweets: Why We Need Fewer White Men Voting for the Oscars
The king of horror doesn't understand his own implicit biases.
Stephen King 'Good Morning America' TV show, NYC
Today, Stephen King—one of the most beloved and prolific authors of all time—joined the ranks of celebrities who have made an ass of themselves on Twitter.
King is a member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the body of people who vote to determine the outcome of the Oscars. Apparently, adding his two cents to the conversation surrounding the very white 2020 Oscar nominations, King began tweeting:
And then, more than two hours later, King added a seemingly contradictory sentiment:
Many people on Twitter took issue with King's tweets, responding with accusations of white privilege, among other things.
King is a historically progressive voice on the Internet, often tweeting critiques of Trump and other conservative leaders; he is also a noted philanthropist and activist for a variety of progressive causes. But, given the nature of racism in America, Twitter users who critiqued his tweets are right in their perception that he was being ignorant, and it shouldn't come as a surprise.
First, to say that the issue of diversity "did not come up" in his voting process is essential to claim color blindness, something that has been proven over and over again to be a way to allow subconscious bias to continue to exist unchecked. As The Atlantic puts it, "They [sociologists] argue that as the mechanisms that reproduce racial inequality have become more covert and obscure than they were during the era of open, legal segregation, the language of explicit racism has given way to a discourse of colorblindness. But they fear that the refusal to take public note of race actually allows people to ignore manifestations of persistent discrimination." Essentially, just because King did not openly discriminate against films made by and starring people of color, that does not mean that his choices were unaffected by racial biases.
He then goes on to say, "I would never consider diversity in matters of art. Only quality. It seems to me that to do otherwise would be wrong." While this is a common argument against practices like affirmative action, it is also deeply flawed. This kind of egalitarianism would be admirable in a world in which art made by POC and white people existed on an equal playing field, but thanks to centuries of systemic racism and oppression, it does not. We are culturally programmed to see white art as the only legitimate kind of art, particularly in the case of films, because, until relatively recently, filmmaking was a particularly inaccessible medium for POC.
Of course, King ultimately backpedaled (or clarified his point, depending on your perspective), stating, "The most important thing we can do as artists and creative people is to make sure everyone has the same fair shot, regardless of sex, color, or orientation. Right now such people are badly under-represented, and not only in the arts." This tweet suggests that what King was trying to say was that as long as POC and other marginalized groups have the opportunity to make art and therefore be in the running for awards, then they should be judged by the same criteria applied to white art. Unfortunately, this is still an optimistic and privileged point of view. The fact of the matter is, while explicit racism is becoming less and less acceptable in modern America, "aversive racism" still affects as many as two-thirds to three-quarters of white Americans. John Dovidio, a professor of psychology at Yale, explains "aversive racism" as: "Instead of feelings of hatred, it's more like feelings of avoidance and discomfort. That's where the name aversive racism comes from."
Considering the fact that as recently as 2012, Oscar voters were 94% Caucasian and 77% male, it's safe to say that there is a lot of aversive racism and sexism at play in Oscar voting. The Academy has supposedly attempted to diversify since then, and they now have 7,902 voting members, a group that is supposedly made up of more women and POC than in previous years. But still, the Academy remains predominantly white and male; and as long as that remains true, it's unlikely we'll see much of an uptick in the diversity of Oscar nominees. Essentially, acknowledging your implicit bias as a white person is very important, but there is only so much you can do to overcome it because most of the time, you're certain you're being completely fair.
While this kind of bias confrontation is important work, as Dovidio puts it, aversive racism "...usually happens when you can justify a response on the basis of some factor other than race. So, there may be like two people that you are interviewing – one white and one black – and you shift your criteria for the job in a way that actually favors the white person without actually directly discriminating against it. So the problem is every time we look at our behavior and monitor our behavior, we behave in an egalitarian way. And it's only when we're not paying attention that we discriminate."
All of this being said, one has to ask: Should King have voted for films made by POC just for the sake of diversity, even if he didn't think those films deserved his vote? Not necessarily. But what he should have done, and what all white people should do on a daily basis when put in the position to judge and critique art made by and for POC, is interrogate our opinions and our biases.
Here are a few of the questions we need to ask ourselves in those kinds of situations:
So maybe King should have voted for POC movies for the sake of diversity. Maybe he should have acknowledged that, as a white man, he was inevitably going to gravitate towards movies made for and about white men and reacted by casting his votes for films he knew were important to and celebrated by POC. Does this seem like a completely fair way to determine the recipient of an award? No, but neither is being a POC in America.
At the end of the day, the only way to actually address the inequality in Hollywood is to make room for POC to take up space. In this case, that looks like diversifying the Academy until it truly represents the reality of our diverse, multicultural country. And that starts when white men (and white women) admit their implicit biases, confront them, and ultimately move out of the way to give POC and women a chance to make their opinions heard.