So the Oscar nominations came out, and I am honestly disappointed, but not surprised. Already, there have been multiple pieces online lambasting the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for upholding the norms of straight, white, cisgender men getting all the attention. This is fair, as “Selma” was the only Oscar-worthy movie from 2014 that was not about and did not star white people. “But Jess, you cis white male asshole!” you cry. “What about ‘Dear White People,’ a lovely comedy-drama about identity, racism and gender in college? And what of ‘Beyond the Lights,’ which you didn’t see but heard was pretty good? Heck, Jess, what about ‘Top Five?’”
I’m going to tell you what about all those things from personal experience, without invalidating the rage that comes from an experience I do not and cannot understand. I check my privilege, and I get the argument that anything built on a white power structure is inherently violent and harmful. I do not invalidate that argument or that rage. I simply suggest a change in target. Now, let us move into the main part of the article.
“Selma” was the only “Oscar” movie about people of color released in 2014, because it was the only “big” movie about people of color released in 2014. At the end of the day, Academy members will only vote for movies that they’ve seen. And even though it was good, “Dear White People” was a small indie movie with a title many white viewers found antagonistic. “Beyond the Lights” was barely released in the United States, and “Top Five” is great but also seen as a big, mainstream, Chris Rock studio comedy, the end.
These explanations may sound silly, dismissive and even arbitrary, but it’s important to understand that the Oscars are those things, too. Despite the spectacle of the show and the competition, the voting pool for the Oscars is not that large. Once they get in, Academy members are members for life, their individual tastes often coinciding with mainstream trends. Their film taste is also often relegated to what they hear is good from their friends, their family and their coworkers, as well as what they have time to watch. Academy voters all work in the film industry one way or another, and most higher-ups don’t go to every festival and see every movie released per year. They have people for that (even the biggest festivals, like Cannes and Sundance, are primarily markets).
Put simply, the Oscars aren’t interested in great movies that will stand the test of time so much as what the biggest, most acclaimed and most popular movies are right now. Does that limit ever include great movies? Of course, that’s why we’ll remember films like “The Godfather” and “Selma” over movies like “The King’s Speech” or “Crash.” But this does not mean that the Oscars aren’t mainly just a marketing show.
Now that I have hopefully explained the futility of holding the Oscars to a high standard, let me make a quick clarification. The Academy Awards are silly and boring, but they definitely do matter. Audiences like a bit of a guide when picking what movies to watch, and that Oscar bump can put more people in seats. That little statue and golden font automatically opens hundreds of career doors, because it’s a possible guarantee for acclaim and box office success. That’s why it’s great that Lupita Nyong’o has an Oscar, and why Nicolas Cage will always be billed as “Academy Award Winner” Nicolas Cage.
Anyway, let’s look at the nominations for best picture. These are the best films of the moment. None are surprising, except maybe “The Theory of Everything,” which I did not like at all. Why aren’t the rest surprising though? Because there’s one of every type of movie Oscar loves to nominate. There’s the wildly acclaimed and liked movies (“Birdman,” “Boyhood,” “The Grand Budapest Hotel”), the beloved indies (“Whiplash”), not one but two biopics (“The Theory of Everything,” “The Imitation Game”), a movie by a Hollywood legend (“American Sniper”) and the movie about something big and important in history (“Selma”). These categories do not judge the quality of the films (that’s my job!), but if you look, they are applicable to almost every contemporary Oscar pool.
Realistically, it’s a race between “Birdman” and “Boyhood,” which the latter will likely win because of the whole filmed-over-12-years thing. And Richard Linklater will probably win Best Director, because he’s had so many critical hits over the years that were ignored. Similarly, Michael Keaton will probably win Best Actor because he’s been around forever and has it coming (he was also brilliant in “Birdman”). Reese Witherspoon and J.K. Simmons will also probably win their nominations for the same reason. Because “12 Years a Slave” won Best Picture last year, “Selma” doesn’t really have a chance this year, because “black movies” can’t be honored too quickly in succession. That may sound bad, and it really is, but it’s also true without some sort of miracle. This year’s Oscars included incredibly safe nominations, and it will likely be an incredibly safe set of winners.
However. This prediction of mine is not an excuse for the egregious and absurd shutting out of “Selma” from most of the major awards. Though David Oyelowo and Ava DuVernay definitely would not have won this year, that both are missing from the ballot is maddening and says more about the Oscars than anything else. DuVernay’s direction in “Selma” was subtle but fantastic, and Oyelowo’s performance was one for the ages, embodying and interpreting Martin Luther King Jr. in an astounding fashion. “Selma” takes one of King’s many achievements and made it both an exploration of and an affirmation of the Civil RIghts Movement as a victory for African-American self-determination and humanity. DuVernay and Oyelowo were key in doing so, and that they were snubbed because of the ridiculous patterns the Academy takes is awful.
Furthermore, “Selma” is a film with an amazing ensemble cast. Where were the supporting nods for Tom Wilkinson, Carmen Ejogo or Lorraine Toussaint? Or any of the other fantastic supporting performances? I know there were complaint’s of “Selma’s” choice to (rightfully) not idolize LBJ, but that is a nonsense excuse that was noticeably only thrown at this year’s main “black” movie. Clint Eastwood cherry-picked Chris Kyle’s memoir for “American Sniper” and created a troubled, remorseful Chris Kyle that quite literally did not exist. And what of “Foxcatcher,” a really good movie in its own right but with a much smaller scale and cast? Bennett Miller did a great job, and so did the leads, but I wouldn’t say that Steve Carell’s performance was more significant or important than Oyelowo’s.
But even these points and complaints miss the point I’m trying to make. The Oscars are absolutely not the be-all end-all judge of quality for American film. What they nominate or don’t nominate doesn’t make “Selma” less worthy of anyone’s ticket money, unless someone is so shallow that they require an Oscar symbol to convince them to see any movie. It is a serious waste of time to get angry at one arm of the white-centric cultural institution of the film industry. That said, as viewers who live in a world that is increasingly aware of and friendly towards increased intersectional diversity as a norm, there is every reason to demand better representation in the mainstream. But since movies are an industry as well as an art form, pushing for not only inclusion, but radical change in the way production is approached, is necessary.
An ideal world would have as many “Dear White Peoples” coming out per year as “22 Jump Streets,” and as many Laverne Coxes as Reese Witherspoons. But right now, all we can do is be pragmatic and specific in what we choose to support. This is not a call to stop having fun at the movies, but one to reserve overwritten-thinkpiece energy for productivity and making a film culture that truly represents who aren’t represented now.
