Rock Solid: The Oscars 2016

The most contentious, scrutinised Oscar season in recent memory is finally over. The awards have been dished out, the red carpet has been rolled up and we can finally stop saying “It’s Leo’s time.” But the most memorable aspect of this awards season had little to do with the actual films. This year, the movies were secondary to the discussion on race – the talk of Tinseltown. The question on everybody’s lips wasn’t so much “who was going to win”, but rather why some people (noticeably) weren’t even nominated. Truly, it seemed the 2016 Oscars was very much defined by diversity – or, more accurately, the lack thereof.

Last night, at around 5:30 p.m. P.S.T., someone ushered a giant elephant into the Dolby Theatre on Hollywood Boulevard. It was big, it was loud and it was very – very – obvious. And just as Chris Rock was about to take to the stage, everyone was wondering if he was going address it. Will he? Won’t he? Will he play it safe? Will he knock out a few quips about the films, make a few jabs at the stars and be done with it? Or will he point at the elephant, stare it down and call it out.

For some intoxicated audience members, the elephant began to turn pink. For a few others, they began to turn pink. Rock, dressed conspicuously in a white tux, dived straight into the racial controversy surrounding the Academy Awards: “Is Hollywood racist?” he asked. “You’re damn right Hollywood’s racist” – a phrase spoken from Hollywood’s grandest stage on Hollywood’s biggest night. Uncomfortable laughter started bouncing off the walls – sporadically, mind you – interspersed with a few desperate shots of white, Hollywood liberals laughing, cut together for the televised edit.

But Rock’s monologue was great. It was funny, it was on point and it made everyone in the room feel respectfully chastised for the lack of resolve surrounding Hollywood’s minority problem. The elephant flung its trunk over its shoulder and exited stage right. Rock had delivered.

The elephant was born when the nominations were announced earlier this year and #OscarsSoWhite began trending all over social media. As a result of all twenty acting nominations being issued entirely to white actors, the elephant, with scissors in hand, began cutting the ground from under the Oscars’ feet.

But, on the night, Rock had beaten scissors.

Did he single-handedly salvage the Oscars’ reputation? No. Did he solve racism in America? No – obviously: we live in a world in which the Republican frontrunner, Donald Trump (a.k.a. “Drumpf”), will not publically condemn former Grand Wizard of the K.K.K., David Duke, and yet still rakes in a 49 % approval rating in the polls. But what Chris Rock did do was offer a very thoughtful, very simple appeal to a massive audience across the globe: “It’s not about boycotting anything. It’s just, we want opportunity. We want black actors to get the same opportunities as white actors.”

Hollywood’s minority problem is not a minor problem. It is a major problem – and certainly one not exclusive to Hollywood. The Oscar race shouldn’t belong to a single race. We’re talking about cinema here: a universal art form that encompasses all races, all ethnicities, all genders, languages and cultures. But Chris Rock posed a solution – an ironic solution, considering its connotations. Rock suggested a separate category for black actors (albeit, somewhat flippantly). In other words: imposing segregation. But of course that’s a slippery slope. And where does one draw the line? Segregating Asian-Americans from African-Americas; separating Caucasians from Latinos – such a scenario would guarantee equality, for sure, but it also unnecessarily subdivides art into redundant categories that bare no relation to the production of the art itself. No race has the ability to “act” better than any other. No race has the ability to “direct” better than any other. There’s no need to distinguish between race (or indeed gender) when it comes to filmmaking – or any art form for that matter.

What matters, as Rock said, is opportunity: diverse voices producing diverse stories from diverse points of view. But the only way to achieve that is through targeting the industry, not the awards (as ludicrous as they can be). It’s the industry that has the upper hand. It’s the studio heads and executives that are in charge. They dictate what films get made and by whom. It’s the industry that has the power to make a difference. Award shows can only award. And, as Viola Davis pointed out in her acceptance speech at the Emmys last year, “You can’t win awards for roles that are simply not there.”

But you can create those roles, Hollywood. I know you can. You call yourself “the dream factory”? Well now’s your chance to prove it, because an awful lot of black men and women across the country have a dream – a dream once beautifully and succinctly summarised by the immortal Ms. Nina Simone in her song Mississippi Goddam: “All I want is equality for my brother, my sister, my people and me.”

The Oscars: Why do We Bother?

Every year a guns goes off and the Oscar race begins, and jamming the running lanes are respectful, important, prestigious pictures; many of which are good, but few of which are great. And – in a sadly all too familiar fashion – allegations of racism have returned this year amidst the nominations. There’s no sign of Tangerine, little room for Creed, and no nomination for Samuel L. Jackson’s performance in The Hateful Eight. Yet, these films are all vastly superior to hotly-tipped favourites like The Revenant – so much so that it’s easy to resort to the obvious explanation of their absence: those films star black people, Oscar films star white people.

But my beef with the Oscars goes even further.

I wouldn’t mind the Oscars so much if they didn’t regard themselves as supremely judicious; the arbiters of fine filmmaking; the ultimate voice on artistic screen merit. (On their website they boast winning an Oscar is “the highest honor in filmmaking” – modest bunch, aren’t they?)

But the Oscars are a crock. They always have been and they always will be. Comedies are routinely snubbed, horror is completely disregarded and action films are treated with disdain (this year’s Mad Max: Fury Road is a stark anomaly). Sure, all award ceremonies are ridiculous. They’re also entirely subjective. But Oscar voters have an astonishing taste for mediocrity – so much so that Alfred Hitchcock never won an Oscar. Neither did Robert Altman, Montgomery Clift, Gena Rowlands, Gordon Willis, Thelma Ritter, Barbara Stanwyck or Howard Hawks – Howard Hawks! Roger Deakins still hasn’t won an Oscar and Buster Keaton was never even nominated.

Go figure.

Instead, the Oscars have a shocking habit of awarding the wrong films and the wrong people; or the right people but at the wrong time (Martin Scorsese for The Departed but not for Taxi Driver; Al Pacino for Scent of a Woman but not The Godfather Part II). When its track record is examined, the Oscars’ awful, smug, self-importance turns out to be laughable.

This complacency is, of course, completely unwarranted. But the Oscars’ view of itself as the ultimate judge on worthy cinema is downright delusional. It’s delusional for many reasons, but primarily for this: Oscar voters don’t really care about cinema – because “cinema” includes world cinema, and the Oscars have always – always – treated world cinema with contempt.

Foreign language performances rarely win Oscars; foreign language screenplays rarely win Oscars – and foreign language films never win Best Picture. Instead, these films are given their own, patronising subcategory, “Best Foreign Language Film”; whereby, under the rules of the supercilious Academy, only one film can be submitted per foreign country. As for the English-speaking countries though? No limit.

Think about that. Few African-Americans have been nominated this year, but even fewer Africans have been nominated. Few Asian-Americans have been nominated this year, but even fewer Asians have been nominated. Two entire continents rich in culture, history and art are consistently shut out of the big categories at the Oscars – a ceremony that claims to value cinema and art. The power of world cinema – its ability for us to empathise with those around the globe – is profound, and absolutely essential. Foreign films help us gain a better understanding of the world around us, a better understanding of our fellow man and woman – a better understanding of ourselves.

The Oscars’ disregard of world cinema is partly due to the English-speaking world’s aversion to subtitles. But showing extreme dedication to your own language and culture at every single opportunity does not benefit cinema or moviegoers. By exclusively awarding English language films, the Academy, in effect, deems foreign language films as inferior – which is insane. But anyone who champions art should also champion diversity – not just racial diversity, but global diversity. Because by increasing diversity we soon realise that we’re not all that diverse. We’re human. We all have the same emotions, the same desires and the same experiences.

Such is the power of world cinema.

But the Oscars don’t care about the rest of the world – even if it makes them look ridiculous. How can any Academy claim to offer a “Best Director” award but never gave it to Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini, Akira Kurosawa, Satyajit Ray, Agnès Varda, Luis Buñuel, Chantal Akerman, François Truffaut and countless other deserving auteurs? How can any Academy offer it without a shred of irony?

Unfortunately though, people take the Oscars seriously – almost as seriously as they take themselves. The Oscars, in practice, can serve as a platform to introduce an underappreciated artist to a wider audience. But they rarely do. They never dare award anything that diverts from the solemn, English language prestige pictures. On occasion they will consider themselves daring and nominate the odd film outside of that parochial bracket. But they never give it the prize, and certainly never the top prize.

So why take them seriously? This is the Academy that has never once thought the year’s “Best Picture” was made anywhere other than the English-speaking world. During the Oscars’ 88 years of dishing out statuettes, only nine non-English language films have ever been nominated for Best Picture (that’s nine out of 528 films).

So yes, the Oscars are a crock. They always have been and they always will be. Unless they start acknowledging that there are different cultures out there, different backgrounds and different languages – all equally deserving of recognition – why bother with them? Honestly. Why do we bother? Instead, treat the Oscars as the nonsense they are: a three hour-plus slog of unfunny jokes, dodgey speeches and the Hollywood machine patting itself on the back for its English-speaking prestige.

Interview with an Oscar Voter

This week I sat down with an Oscar voter (whom wishes to remain anonymous) and had a chat about who they decided to vote for this year. This is what he had to say:

I guess we could start with Best Picture. Who did you go for in the Best Picture category?

I went with Boyhood because it took 12 years to film—12 years! That’s more than a decade!

Did you cast your vote because of the technique or the actual film?

Well, the film was good as well. The way you got to see that kid grow up over the course of the film was amazing. Seeing everyone age before your eyes was pretty incredible. Never seen anything like that before—12 years!

Yes, the execution was very well done. Very naturalist and—

12 years!

—Ah… yeah… very naturalist and in direct contrast to many of those up for Best Visual Effects.

Yeah that’s true. Although for Special Effects I went with Guardians of the Galaxy, because just look at those special effects. They’re pretty incredible. But really you could pick any one of those films from that list. All their special effects are just amazing. They go all the way up to 11!

But maybe the more subtle, nuanced special effects that don’t draw attention to themselves could possibly be even more deserving of the award, no?

[pauses]

… But these ones go up to 11.

How about Best Sound Editing? Who did you vote for here?

I went for Whiplash here because—

Wait, Whiplash wasn’t nominated in this category.

It wasn’t?

No, maybe you’re thinking of the Sound Mixing category.

[Laughs] Ah yes, you’re right. God knows what the difference is between those two. For this I just picked the movie I liked the most; so, for me, it’s Battle of the Five Armies. The sound was really good in that. Nice and loud.

What did you think of the nominees overall this year? Good year, bad year?

I haven’t seen all the nominees but I thought it was a pretty good year. Although I didn’t care for Whiplash. Like I said, I thought the sound was good—I’m a big fan of drumming—but a film about a guy who does horrible things to people AND shows hardly any remorse for it is pretty distasteful. Even at the end he openly says he wouldn’t have done anything differently if he had the chance. What a nasty little film. But I loved American Sniper.

Er, right… What about Selma? What were your thoughts on Selma?

I thought Selma was good. But when I heard people were chanting, “I can’t breathe!” at the premier I thought that was a bit unnecessary. I mean it was good, but not take-your-breath-away good.

Regular nominee Meryl Streep has been nominated again for Into the Woods this year. Are you a Meryl fan?

God yes! That woman can do no wrong. This is like her zillionth nomination or something as well, isn’t it? [pauses] I mean maybe it would be nice if a man could be nominated as much as that someday. It is a bit unfair the way women kind of run the show around here, but hey, that’s Hollywood, right?