There's a lot of negative buzz about this year's Oscars and the apparent want of diversity in its product for the second year running, despite more than a few performances and a few (fewer) films of note that could have carried that flag. That conversation led to a recent look at the composition of the Oscar voters that had the Academy President scrambling to impact the composition in its wake.
The average Oscar voter is over sixty, white and male. Not exactly the most likely way to see Straight Out of Compton, Beasts of No Nation or even the refocused Rocky films light up the nominations. And no, I'm not jumping on the race wagon by noting that an older skewing, white male demographic isn't the group likely to identify as strongly with or support as readily a younger, more racially and culturally diverse product.
Last year's snubbing of Selma and its lead, among others, started a public conversation on this topic that became heated after similar calls for the above mentioned films and a few actors this year met the same cold Oscar shoulder.
Michael Jordan and Idris Alba gave memorable turns in their highly regarded films. Will Smith gave a strong performance in Concussion and several young leads made waves with Straight Outta Compton. But none of them made the red carpet cut. Why? Maybe it's better to look at it from a competitive perspective. If/then, or, who gets bumped? Is the case less clear when we consider the competition? Let's take best film by way of example. I'll include each film nominated and the Rotten Tomato composite critic score next to it in parenthesis.
Best Film: Brooklyn (98%), Spotlight (97%), Fury Road (97%), Room (96%), The Martian (93%), Bridge of Spies (91%),The Big Short (88%) and The Revenant (82%).
Now let's look at a few omitted films that were in the competitive mix staring people of color.
Creed (94%)
Beasts of No Nation (91%)
Straight Outta Compton (88%)
Concussion (63%)
Okay, Smith's movie wasn't well received and that can kill in a tight year. Fine. Compton was competitive, but not so clearly distinguished from any of the other nominees. Creed, on the other hand, was more highly regarded than four of the films that made the cut. Easily better received than two, as was Beasts. So why didn't either receive a nomination?
I think the Rocky brand suffers from the connection to the cash cow feel of much of the franchise. And maybe Stallone's best performance in years took attention and consideration from the film and young star/protagonist in part. Beasts' Netflix linkage and Idris' villainous turn could be the reason for it and his lack of inclusion here.
What about the comparably weaker films that made the cut? Revenant benefitted from DiCaprio's amazing performance and status as the star of his generation of actors. And its a visually arresting movie with memorable support and terrific cinematography, it's failings as a narrative notwithstanding. Short likely derived a boost from star power in the form of a sum. Too many really good actors involved in an important message to be overlooked.
Then maybe this year wasn't so much a snub as a confluence of events and tastes and bias not predicated on race or age, only influenced by it at the margins. Or, the skew in Academy membership remains and with it has to come a skewing of opportunity as a byproduct of demographic, if not intent, especially in evidence when the choice is a close all things considered nod. A given audience is more comfortable and appreciative of a given product. Older white males have their comfort zones, just like the rest of us and the only way you get a more diverse palate from the Oscars is with a broader palate in the composition of its voters.
When that happens, when the Academy does move younger and diversifies its voting membership, as it will, we will see a shift that rewards films without as much concern for Hollywood conventions and baggage, one that is more representative of the larger and growing audience. Then films like Creed and actors like Jordan will stand more than a puncher's chance at inclusion.
The average Oscar voter is over sixty, white and male. Not exactly the most likely way to see Straight Out of Compton, Beasts of No Nation or even the refocused Rocky films light up the nominations. And no, I'm not jumping on the race wagon by noting that an older skewing, white male demographic isn't the group likely to identify as strongly with or support as readily a younger, more racially and culturally diverse product.
Last year's snubbing of Selma and its lead, among others, started a public conversation on this topic that became heated after similar calls for the above mentioned films and a few actors this year met the same cold Oscar shoulder.
Michael Jordan and Idris Alba gave memorable turns in their highly regarded films. Will Smith gave a strong performance in Concussion and several young leads made waves with Straight Outta Compton. But none of them made the red carpet cut. Why? Maybe it's better to look at it from a competitive perspective. If/then, or, who gets bumped? Is the case less clear when we consider the competition? Let's take best film by way of example. I'll include each film nominated and the Rotten Tomato composite critic score next to it in parenthesis.
Best Film: Brooklyn (98%), Spotlight (97%), Fury Road (97%), Room (96%), The Martian (93%), Bridge of Spies (91%),The Big Short (88%) and The Revenant (82%).
Now let's look at a few omitted films that were in the competitive mix staring people of color.
Creed (94%)
Beasts of No Nation (91%)
Straight Outta Compton (88%)
Concussion (63%)
Okay, Smith's movie wasn't well received and that can kill in a tight year. Fine. Compton was competitive, but not so clearly distinguished from any of the other nominees. Creed, on the other hand, was more highly regarded than four of the films that made the cut. Easily better received than two, as was Beasts. So why didn't either receive a nomination?
I think the Rocky brand suffers from the connection to the cash cow feel of much of the franchise. And maybe Stallone's best performance in years took attention and consideration from the film and young star/protagonist in part. Beasts' Netflix linkage and Idris' villainous turn could be the reason for it and his lack of inclusion here.
What about the comparably weaker films that made the cut? Revenant benefitted from DiCaprio's amazing performance and status as the star of his generation of actors. And its a visually arresting movie with memorable support and terrific cinematography, it's failings as a narrative notwithstanding. Short likely derived a boost from star power in the form of a sum. Too many really good actors involved in an important message to be overlooked.
Then maybe this year wasn't so much a snub as a confluence of events and tastes and bias not predicated on race or age, only influenced by it at the margins. Or, the skew in Academy membership remains and with it has to come a skewing of opportunity as a byproduct of demographic, if not intent, especially in evidence when the choice is a close all things considered nod. A given audience is more comfortable and appreciative of a given product. Older white males have their comfort zones, just like the rest of us and the only way you get a more diverse palate from the Oscars is with a broader palate in the composition of its voters.
When that happens, when the Academy does move younger and diversifies its voting membership, as it will, we will see a shift that rewards films without as much concern for Hollywood conventions and baggage, one that is more representative of the larger and growing audience. Then films like Creed and actors like Jordan will stand more than a puncher's chance at inclusion.
