This is the second part of a discussion between me and my partner Rik over on The Cinema 4 Pylon. Please head over there to read the first part at: http://bit.ly/1nqDmkS
4. Do you believe a threatened
African-American artistic boycott of the 88th Academy Awards in February will
be effective in solving the problem of racial diversity within the Academy? Or
does it need to be much broader in scope to have any real effect?
Aaron: Do I think it
will solve the problem? No, definitely not. Do I think it will help to bring
attention and to the problem and the need to fix it? I will answer with a
resounding yes. Already the publicity has convinced most rational people that
this is a real issue. As I said earlier, Hollywood will only really follow the
money; it has no real political or social leanings of its own, no matter what
George Clooney wants to think. Hollywood can lead the charge on issues of
social justice, and it definitely has in the past, but only once it’s been
proven to be profitable. I don’t mean to sound cynical about the Dream Factory,
but I think it helps explain why the entertainment industry can be this weird
mix of progressive ideology and regressive social viewpoints.
As it stands, I
think this situation has been a total embarrassment for the Academy, and
there’s really no way they can just ignore this. Last year, when Selma star
David Oyelowo was snubbed for Best Actor, the Academy could at least say ‘Yeah,
but the film was nominated for Best Picture, so it’s not like we’re ignoring
you.’ They could hide behind that attitude even when Selma lost to a movie about a middle-aged white guy grappling with
his insecurities. But this year, with so many great performances and films
helmed by and featuring people of color, how is it none of them got nominated?
It boggles the mind that Straight Outta
Compton only got recognized for its screenplay, because it is otherwise the
exact sort of movie the Academy loves to gush over: popular, crowd-pleasing,
and based on a true story. It hits all of the expected and required beats so
perfectly that its lack of inclusion can almost only be read as racist.
And don’t get
me started on Creed (which, full
disclosure, I have not yet seen). A widely acclaimed, profitable movie written
and directed by a black man, about a black man, and the only nomination in the
film is for the old white guy that helps him out. This is sort of to be
expected, though, because if there’s one thing Hollywood loves more than money,
it’s patting themselves on the back, and Stallone’s character in Creed must have hit that sweet spot of
white liberal guilt that allowed Academy voters to vicariously feel like the
good guy, helping the disaffected black youth. A similar phenomenon was likely
at play when The Blind Side and The Help were massive hits awarded with
Academy recognition. People want a social issue that they can be the hero of,
and so they see Sylvester Stallone helping this kid out, and think to
themselves ‘Man, I’d love to be that guy, and prove we aren’t all racist
assholes.’ This should not be read as me stating that Stallone doesn’t deserve
the Oscar nomination; everything I hear is that he’s quite good in the film,
and of course he was nominated for the original Rocky way back when. But to single him out in a film that is
getting a lot of acclaim for both its star, Michael B. Jordan, and its
co-writer/director, Ryan Coogler, seems a bit odd.
Rik: As we were putting this
piece together, Academy president Cheryl Boon Isaacs came out with a statement
lamenting the lack of diversity in her organization. Isaacs, who is black, is
the only non-white member of the 43-member executive branch, and she put out
the statement in response to both Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett-Smith, who both
stated they would not be attending the Oscars this year because of the lack of
diversity in the nominations. Isaacs said the Academy was instituting a
five-year plan, with a goal of 2020, to drastically expand the membership of
the Academy to make it more racially and gender diverse.
I personally wish that someone
besides Jada Pinkett-Smith had been the first to really speak up about this
issue, because she is married to someone whom it is widely believed should have
received an Oscar nomination this year. Lee himself had his own horse in
the race with Chi-Raq. While their announcements were certainly
heard, they could potentially just be perceived as so many sour grapes. On the
other side, Lee also just received an Honorary Oscar in November for his
lifetime of film work, and so his absence from the February ceremony when they
call his name will be noticed greatly.
No call for a wider boycott has
actually been put out, but what if it did? I am not sure it will be all that
effective without Hollywood itself changing massively in the types of films it
puts out and how it hires minorities across the board. But if a boycott did
occur, it would have to include far more than just African-Americans or
Asian-Americans or women... it would need to be as diverse as the intended
goal. Isaacs said the Academy's goal was 2020, and that seems to have been said
to buy them some time, but will people be accepting of this type of a “wait and
see” response? The only real way to get the Academy's notice is to hit them
where it hurts the most: a full-scale boycott of the broadcast itself, and that
might including hitting potential advertisers in the pocketbook as well.
Otherwise, it will be sound and fury. And then, the only option would be to
wait for five years to see if anything has happened.
And I somewhat agree on your point about Stallone’s nomination possibly
fulfilling a form of white liberal guilt on the part of the members who voted
for it, but from my side, I just see it as another example of a Supporting
Actor award nomination (or even win) being used to recognize a longtime member
for his successful career in Hollywood.
5. Will you skip watching the Oscars this year in recognition of a possible
boycott, or can you not keep away?
Rik: I guess the question that we
should have asked if “Would you support such a boycott?” My answer would be no,
even though I am as desirous of an outcome of wider diversity in the industry
as the rest. I just don’t think it is the solution to the problem.
As for skipping the Oscars? Not a
friggin’ chance. Can't happen; won't happen. Unless the response is so big that
they have to cancel the broadcast, I will be watching the Oscars this year. I
would gladly boycott sponsors of the show, but their commercials don't affect
us anyway since we purposefully watch the film on a delay so we can zip past
most of the ads. Can’t boycott something if you don’t even know they are
sponsoring something. (I suppose a list would get compiled, so maybe then…)
I haven't purposefully skipped
the Oscars since I was a kid, so why would I start now? It's one of the few
ceremonies that I continue to celebrate, even if I readily admit that I don't
usually agree with most of the nominations or winners. For me, it is the last
bastion of old Hollywood that most of the world gets to see, and I don't want
it to go away. They just need to be more inclusive across the board.
Aaron: Yeah, you
pretty much answered for me; I will definitely be watching the ceremony. At
this point there is no way the issue won’t be addressed, either by a presenter,
a winner, or host Chris Rock, and I’m looking forward to that. But then, I’d
just be watching the awards anyway. While I realize the awards show is flawed,
it’s always been that way. The movies that get nominated and awarded are never
the ones I want, and the award is next to meaningless to anybody not in that
room. It’s Hollywood congratulating itself for a few hours, and selling
advertising space while doing so. This year the scandal gives the show the
opportunity to be relevant and meaningful for the first time… maybe ever.
I see there
have been some calls for Chris Rock to join the boycott and step down from his
role as host this year, and I dearly hope he does not listen. If he leaves the
show, sure, the parade of white stars and producers will paint an ugly portrait
of racism in Hollywood, but it will
also deprive the show of the one voice that could honestly address the
situation from the viewpoint of someone affected by it. If we see Brad Pitt get
up there and talk about diversity in Hollywood, or George Clooney talk about
how Hollywood should lead the charge on these issues, it’s going to feel just
as masturbatory as the rest of the ceremony. If Chris Rock is up there
speaking, or if Spike Lee actually was allowed on stage, it would be an
opportunity to actually speak out and affect some change.
In the end I
think my thoughts echo those of Viola Davis, who said “The problem is not with
the Oscars, the problem is with the Hollywood movie-making system.” The Academy
Awards are a reflection of the year for the Hollywood studios; it doesn’t fully
reflect the face of what is really going on in American cinema. A lot of the
most vibrant and diverse works being produced will never make it onto a ballot,
partially because a lot of those films, and the artists working on them, are
non-union and therefore have no voice in the voting process.
Take the 2015
film Tangerine, which is miles away
from the type of fare the Oscars usually reward, and is therefore nowhere to be
seen in the list of nominees. Tangerine
follows the story of two transgender women as they scour West Hollywood for the
pimp who has wronged one of them, and was one of the most energetic and vibrant
films I saw last year. The film was shot for around $100,000, and on an iPhone
no less (though you wouldn’t notice it if you didn’t know that information
beforehand), which was necessitated by the fact that no studio in Hollywood
would have dared fund the film. Like I said, not the type of film the Academy
would normally praise, and yet that speaks to the blinkered existence in which
the Academy lives.
So, you have a vibrant film scene happening under the radar in Hollywood, a
scene that is inclusive of all comers, and more representative of what most
people experience in the world around them. The fact that these films, and
filmmakers, are excluded from awards recognition is not really the fault of the
Oscars, outside of the fact that union membership seems to be an unofficial
requirement of becoming a voting member. In order for the Academy Awards to
recognize more diverse works, they need to urge their members to look outside
of the big studio output, or the big
studios need to start making a more diverse product. Right now it’s a little
bit like a feedback loop; the studios continue making whitewashed tentpole
movies and crowd-pleasing dramas, because that’s what audiences and awards
shows like. The awards shows like those whitewashed crowd-pleasers because
that’s the only thing being made, and on and on and on it will go until someone
decides to make a change. I believe the decision to expand Academy membership
and recruit new members is the right one, but it remains to be seen if it will be
enough. I’ll tell you one thing, I am actually more interested in seeing this
year’s Oscars than I have been in quite awhile.
