Forums

It's that time of year again: award season. With it comes probably the most watched ceremony in Hollywood - the Oscars. However, as many people know, for the 2nd year in a row all the nominees are white. This could be explained by the fact that the panel deciding the Oscar nominations is around 94% white, most of whom are older white men. Since this same scenario occurred last year, I would have thought that the academy would have ensured a greater racial diversity among their nominees for this year. I do understand that such changes take time, but this is 2016, and it's time that the academy fairly nominate actors on the basis of their performances onscreen, rather than choosing people on the basis of their skin colour. Something else which I found odd and frustrating is that even in movies primarily featuring black actors or stories about black people, white actors and directors were acknowledged for their parts, rather than the black actors and directors. This raises an important question - does the panel believe that it's honourable to make movies about people of colour, but that the black actors/directors who show these stories on the big screen aren't worthy enough to be acknowledged properly for their work? If that's true, this idea of being "honourable" could suggest that the predominantly white Oscar judging panel believes that such movies being nominated (about people of colour) are an act of charity, and that the academy believes it's being gracious in performing such a service. In fact, making Chris Rock the host of this year's ceremony and having Cheryl Boone Isaacs as the academy president (both of whom are black) strongly hints that tokenism is at play. It's clear though that not all of America shares the same racist mentality as the Oscar panel, since many have joined the movement to boycott the Oscars and not watch the show at all. As Reverend Al Sharpton states, perhaps the Academy would be pressured to change its mindset if more and more people boycott the Oscars, resulting in a loss of profit for them. While reading "Invisible Man" by Ellison, I was reminded of that same idea of charity when Norton, one of the main financial trustees of the school, promotes the education of black youth, but in a way that makes these youth obligated and grateful to him. This book was published in 1952, and 60+ years later, it's ridiculous that this (racist) mentality is being echoed in the present period. It remains to be seen if the Oscars boycott leads to any change on the Academy's part.

I fully agree that the lack of representation of blacks in this years Oscar nominations is ridiculous. It's 2016, and yet we still experience avoidable acts of inequality on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. I find it appalling that the predominantly white Oscar panel would choose an all white lineup of nominees, either intentionally or unintentionally. If their choice to omit black nominees was intentional, there is a serious problem of racial discrimination. But even if the choices were made unintentionally, this could also reveal a deeper, unconscious belief that whites are superior to blacks. They may not be trying to be outright racists, but at the same time they aren't suppressing their white superiority. I find the Saturday Night Live skit mentioned above very funny, as it addresses these issues in a comical but true manner. Whites are being recognized while blacks are not, and this isn't fair. The talent in this year's nominees is incredible, and these actors and actresses should be recognized. But the fact that the work of those talented black actors and actresses is going unrecognized is cause for concern.

I agree with the post above, especially Sarah's salient point about there not being a representation of other races as well. "12 Years a Slave" did indeed win many Oscars, which is why I argue that this award ceremony is not intentionally discriminating by race. Those selecting the nominees are on a panel, and given their age and race, are not necessarily as open-minded as we are as a generation in 2016. The Oscars are viewed by millions of people worldwide, but this by no means makes them the ultimate decider of who the best movies and actors are. There are plenty of movies and actors that are not recognized at the Oscars, which I sometimes find more enjoyable than movies such as "The Martian." I do not believe that the Oscars are purposefully racist, because they have nominated black actors and movies in the past. These nominations work on a yearly basis, and the involvement of minorities in these movies would fluctuate annually. This controversy is also impacted by the ratio of whites to minorities in Hollywood in general. There are more white actors in the field, so it would make sense that they would win more awards. I do agree that there was an under-representation of minorities in the Oscars this year, but I don't think it is a strategy to exclude them from such awards, after all, Chris Rock hosted.

This controversy is complicated by the Black Movie Awards, which take place on an annual basis. They are held in order to honour African American actors and films for their achievements. Although I can fully understand the justification for holding such an event, could this not be considered as counter-productive? In order for us to view America as multicultural and equal, doesn't an event like this separate racial groups? I definitely support celebrating such cinematic achievements, but I do not think having distinct ceremonies by race is helping the matter.

In terms of the under-representation of minorities in the Oscars, it is an unfortunate occurrence, because there are many talented actors and actresses that are not white. I do not think that the intention was to be malicious though, as the Oscars panel is nominating based off of a carefully measured scoring system. I do not think race weighs in on their final decision.