The Real Problem with Diversity at the Oscars...and an idea of how to fix it.

So, I may have been wrong about something.

In my reaction to the 87^th Oscar nominations, I said that if Selma was shut out completely, it might warrant some unwanted backlash.  In truth, actually recognizing it as ONLY a Best Picture contender probably caused more backlash than just ignoring the movie completely.

The problem with the reaction to the lack of ethnic diversity is actually taking away from serious issues that the Academy does have.  The Academy has the right to put up whomever they want, and we as spectators have the option to see the films and watch the ceremony on TV if we so desire.  But to scope frustration that is quite clearly founded in the fact that Selma, a biopic (similar to half of the other nominees in that regard) that had “potential” to be nominated and wasn’t, is ridiculous.  The argument has as much standing as me saying how frustrated I am at the blind Academy members who didn’t nominate my favorite movie, Boyhood, for ENOUGH awards.  We hear the same cries every year from film fans, and it’s time to look at problems in a new light, if the goal is to not be mad.

Throw out any desire of sympathy and recognition by the Academy for your race/color/national origin.  I’m Greek American, I could be appalled that there were no Greek Americans (like Jennifer Aniston) nominated.  But I’m not.  I have no sympathy for people who don’t have any time of day to look at history as late as last year, when 12 Years a Slave won Best Picture.  Let’s recognize the progress that has been made for Black people in Hollywood.  In the last 15 years we’ve seen almost double the number of black Oscar winners than its entire history prior to that.  Black people have also been a part of many Hollywood formulas for the last 20-30 years.

The truth is, we shouldn’t care if all the nominees are all black or white or anything.  We should focus on films that need recognition.  Selma, one can argue, needs recognition (I have argued that on multiple occasions).  But it doesn’t need recognition because it stars black people, or even because it was directed by a black woman.  The film, AS A FILM, deserves to be recognized over, oh say, other biopics nominated this year.  If you refuse to focus on the merits of the film, and focus on race instead, nothing gets done, and no progress is made. So users of #OscarSoWhite on social media, I ask you kindly, please have a little perspective before you make a statement (lol, like that will happen.)

Especially because, the Academy does have real problems.  Problems that stem beyond race.  The obvious (sorry people but you’re late to the party if you’re just realizing this) lack of diversity in Academy membership means two things, one rather annoying, and one a little more upsetting.  First, Academy members, especially executives, tend to have the same opinions and lifestyles, in addition to generally being the same race and gender.  Lifestyles that include NOT WATCHING MOVIES, or at least not watching many in the theater.   The way the Oscars are, Hollywood Execs, Actors, Directors, Writers who lead rather busy lives, are only exposed to certain films, not all films.  Getting a small film to grab their attention has always been hard.  Many are concerned what their friends and acquaintances are producing, and choose to recognize films, performances and technical aspects of films to help their homies (the ultimate in Hollywood Cronyism).

Now that’s not saying Hollywood is racist.  It’s actually far from it.  But not being able to see a number of films, or lack of will or time to see films has aggressively narrowed the scope of what is nominated, creating a more specific “for-your-consideration” type of Oscar-contender.

The Oscar “type” of film has always shut out the ability for other types of film to be nominated.  This has been driven by the amount of campaigning, and money used therein, to get people across the board in Hollywood to watch these films.  Awards are powerful, and the Oscars are not the only award show guilty of being rendered helpless to campaign financing (although they were the first).  

Look at the Independent Spirit Awards, who, quite obviously and pretentiously, are chasing the rest of the award season by constantly changing the rules as to what is considered an “independent film.”  I never recognize the Spirit Awards on this blog, because a film like Birdman, which was produced for $18 million with an all-star, established cast, an established director and produced by a strong subsidiary of 20^th Century Fox, should not be considered an independent film.  Keep in mind, Regency also produced Gone Girl this year, and I’m not sure if there is any person out there that would constitute THAT as an independent film.

But why is nobody talking about the lack of diversity in genre?  Four of the eight movies are BIOGRAPHIES.  Four of the five lead actors are playing actual people.  This is a trend that has taken over the Oscars in the last twenty years.  Where are Forrest Gump, Rain Man, Rocky and The Godfather?  Replaced by Stephen Hawking, Alan Turing and Chris Kyle.  Not to mention previous winners Ray Charles, Idi Amin, King George VI and Abraham Lincoln.  It seems every year Oscar has its picking of actors doing glorified impressions of real life figures, and actors fighting for the 

roles.   Where is the diversity?

The Academy almost had progress a few years ago, when they first expanded Best Picture to ten films to include popular, big budget blockbusters, but also to shed light (even more-so than other awards) on smaller or different types of films.  For example, animated films such as Up! and Toy Story 3 nabbed Best Picture nominations, when previously an animated film being nominated was relatively unheard of (it had only happened once before).  Science-fiction films like District 9 and Inception that may not have normally been nominated, made it in.  And most importantly, smaller films like An Education or an actual independent film like Winter’s Bone could receive nominations.

You may remember Winter’s Bone as the first movie you saw Jennifer Lawrence in, who in just a few years went on to become the highest grossing Hollywood movie star.  Thankfully there was a time when the Academy was able to recognize more films like that, but that time is passed.

So, we’re stuck with mostly biopics and movies that focus on the life of some sad chaps.  No possible chance for another animated film, the almost-complete shunning of international film, no documentaries, and only one true independent movie this year (Whiplash).  You don’t need to look at this from the scope of race to see there is a problem.

However, the second point to be made is, all of the films have male leads.  Women, who represent 50% of the population and probably more of the movie going audience, have a difficult time receiving equal recognition.  Even a film like Gone Girl, which made a great deal of money, and many (including myself) anticipated it to be up for Best Picture, was relegated to one category, Best Actress (I don’t even want to mention how its female scriptwriter failed to be the first female in history to not be nominated for adapting her own work.)

Now, I would normally group the understanding that having a female lead or having a male lead doesn’t really matter.  As long as your movie is GREAT, you should be considered for Best Picture.  But women have a beef here, as they always have.  Women, let’s be real, have trouble staying relevant.  Unless you’re someone like Meryl Streep or Katherine Hepburn, your career is going to last as long as your looks stay intact.  That’s the way Hollywood is and always has been.  But do the 

Oscars have to be that way?

Until the Academy makes it a point to include different kinds of films, including thrillers like Gone Girl (remember Fatal Attraction was up), comedies like Bridesmaids or international films (like Ida) for Best Picture, there will be less and less of a demand for character studies of women or films discussing the role of women in society.  Even now as big name directors like David Fincher take on these movies, the women still need to fit certain characteristics to fit the “type.”

…Which basically means cry a lot and/or show your boobs.  There was one Best Actress nominee whose role wasn’t based on either.  I can’t…really…remember the name… it was such a small movie…what was it again, or never mind, I forget.

In addition, women have it worse because there is an actual category for best female performance, so the objectivity is actually put under a microscope.  On the flip side, this does help show that there is a sheer lack of variety in roles for women.

As stated before, the Academy has to reach for diversity in genre and style if there is to be a real change.  Even if the voting field is more diverse in gender and race, they will still need a dousing of humiliation to really move the needle.  Let’s not just be impressed by how well someone cries or plays a real life character.  Let’s be impressed by how well someone puts forth new ideas, and challenges the audience.  We can’t just put up whatever movies we are sent in the mail.  There are many individuals with excellent ideas, that push the boundaries and limits of film, and they exist all over the world.  If the Oscars showcase this talent, there will be more of a demand for new ideas, new movies and the ability to sell tickets in untapped ways.  If this doesn’t happen, it remains to be seen if the Oscars are to survive another 87 years.