Advertisement

Film Review: #OscarsSoWhite precipitates Academy vote for change

Share

There’s a bit of controversy over the Oscars this year. (You may have heard.)

The 20 nominees in the acting category are disproportionately white ... well, actually, all white. Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett Smith have called for a boycott of the ceremony. A whole lot of people — black, white and other — have commented, mostly bemoaning that this is the second consecutive year that no one of color has been nominated in the acting categories.

NEWSLETTER: Stay up to date with what’s going on in the 818 >>

For a socially, politically charged situation, the conversation has been remarkably civil. Nearly everyone seems to understand that the Academy’s problem is largely a reflection of a broader industry problem. Behind that is the understanding that both are aspects of a national, historical problem.

Some commentators have made the mistake of viewing the Academy as a monolithic hive-mind: “You’d think that, after last year, the Academy would have been more sensitive.” But the voters are individuals, separately expressing their taste, preferences and backgrounds.

The only ones seeing a conspiracy are far-right wackos. A search on “black Oscars conspiracy” turned up at least one neo-Nazi website. That site had trouble pinning down the conspiracy, because “the Academy is controlled almost entirely by Jews ... and while it does indeed seem clear that no Black deserved a nomination, Jews have never had a problem with giving Blacks things they don’t deserve.” The site’s eventual conclusion was that “Jews purposefully created this outrage in order to further incite the Blacks.”

I couldn’t make this stuff up.

Perhaps the most egregious shutout was “Straight Outta Compton.” But it may have been ignored simply for being the “wrong” kind of film. Go look at Oscar winners from the beginning and note how many still-remembered films noir, comedies, science fiction films, and other genre movies were beaten (or utterly overlooked) by self-serious dramas that no one still watches. It helps to be just the right sort of “classy” stuff.

“Creed” is more problematic. Sylvester Stallone is nominated in the supporting category, so the film was on people’s radar. But there was no love for star Michael B. Jordan. On the other hand, Stallone’s nomination may have a lot to do with the whole arc of his career from grace to fall to redemption. (Remember the critical respect and love for the original “Rocky”?)

The Academy hammered out a set of rule changes in record time, designed to make the membership more reflective of the industry (if not the real world). Back in the ‘60s and ‘70s, when Hollywood — like much of the rest of the country — was going through cultural upheaval, a new demographic within the industry — the young, the brash, the hip — liked to complain about the predominance of geezers in the Academy. The new rules are designed to gently reduce the geezer population in favor of the young, the female and the nonwhite. The funny part is that the newly endangered geezers are the same ones who were complaining in the ‘60s and ‘70s.

The calls for a boycott have already served their immediate purposes — both by provoking the conversation and by pushing the Academy to at least make an effort to address the underlying problem. Best of all, they’ve given Chris Rock a chance to turn his role as this year’s host into something you really don’t want to miss.

--

ANDY KLEIN is the film critic for Marquee. He can also be heard on “FilmWeek” on KPCC-FM (89.3).

Advertisement