Yesterday, Academy president Cheryl Boone Isaacs issued a statement informing of the upcoming changes in the makeup of the Oscars’ pool of voters. Acknowledging the issue of the lack of diverse representation in the Academy’s composition, she promised a more rapid progression towards the inclusion of all facets of the global portrait of society in gender, ethnicity, race and sexual orientation.
Last week, the announcement of the all-white nominees lineup for the acting and directing categories in the 2016 Academy Awards generated great criticism. Several african-american artists including two-time nominee director Spike Lee, Jada Pinkett Smith and Will Smith have declared their boycott of this year’s ceremony. If the Academy’s communiqué seems to have been published as a direct reaction to the boycott, Boone Isaacs mentions they are in fact speeding up a diversification process started in 2012. Other widespread movements follow these artists’ initiative; the hashtag #OscarsSoWhite trending on social medias has reached out to many to spread the issue.
A certain resistance was expressed against this reproachful comment however; Will Smith’s former co-star Janet Hubert lead the opposition this week in her viral response to Jada Pinkett Smith’s public boycott announcement. If her speech concentrates on the minimal importance of film elites’ award show in a society where social and racial struggles don’t lack, she brushes an argument we find crucial: the question of merit.
The numbers people are throwing as arguments say this: in 2012, the voting members of the Academy were 94% Caucasian, 77% male, and 54% were over 60 years of age. The typical mature white man, responsible for every single problem in America, right? (Imagine if the president of the Academy had been one of them? How easy would it have been to point fingers!) Now, we agree there is a critical lack of diversity, and Ms. Boone Isaacs’ report comes as great news, and will be an essential step in the evolution of the industry, don’t get us wrong. BUT IT’S THAT’S NOT WHERE THE PROBLEM IS.
Let’s take a look at another set of numbers. Only 10% of talking characters in Hollywood are african-american, and roughly 6% of film directors are of color. THIS IS WHAT’S NOT OKAY, and nobody’s talking about it. And let’s not forget, approximately 92% of film directors are men, leaving an 8% of female directors working in the industry. 4,4% of films directed by women make it to the top 100 at box office. This is what this issue is all about. Of course all nominated directors are men! Of course all nominated actors are white! It’s a question of probability. The Academy Awards celebrate performances and achievements. In a pool of artists constituted by so little women and limited diversity, the chances of a caucasian male having performed best are greater.
SO HERE’S THE DEAL. Will Smith wasn’t “snubbed” because he is black. He wasn’t nominated because his performance as a doctor with a shaky accent in Concussion wasn’t so great. No women director has been nominated because there weren’t so many exceptional films directed by women this year. It’s not a question of racist and sexist nominations, it’s a simple question of numbers. In 2014, Lupita Nyong’o won best supporting actress for of her exceptional performance, and it had nothing to do with the color of her skin. The question of merit and excellence despite of race or gender seems to be forgotten by some, but isn’t that what the Oscars celebrate?
Of course, it’s easy to say that the current compound of the white-male-lead Academy chooses nominees based on biased preferences and ressemblances. It’s even easier to proclame such facts when believing that the purpose of the diversification in the Academy is that minorities vote for their representatives. But the Oscars aren’t a war. They are a race-less, genderless celebration of talent and achievement. The changes in the lineup are simply the revitalization of an obsolete group, meant to widen and update perspectives. The deserving nature of the awards stays the same.
What saddens me in this matter is the contradiction in which we find ourselves. Countless campaigns come out every year to show that no matter our race, gender or sexual orientation, we are all the same, and deserve to be treated the same. We prove to younger generations (and hopefully, to older ones all well) that there should be no difference in the way we treat people. Isn’t that what we strive for? Isn’t that the thought we hope to inject in industries such as film in order to reach balanced and proportionate representation? When Jada Pinkett Smith says that “maybe it’s time we pull back our resources and put them back into our communities and make programs for ourselves that acknowledge us in ways that we see fit” isn’t she going the wrong way? Isn’t suggesting such seclusion a step back?
“the Oscars reflect the portrait of a business of which they are not the painter.”
There is an issue in the representation of diversity in the industry of film, there is no denying. But the Oscars reflect the portrait of a business of which they are not the painter. What we need to assess is greater than an award ceremony.
Robert L. Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television issued a list of recommendations in response to this problem today. “The most important thing is that creativity or quality of performance should never be judged on color or ethnicity. I firmly believe that quality entertainment should be colourblind.” We couldn’t agree more. If the revitalization of the Academy’s lineup is an important step towards greater diversity in the film industry, it is only the first of many to come.