Academy change is indicative of larger systemic issue

In an age where the internet finds deep pride in being a hotbed for political and sociological outrage, the collective Twitter and Facebook communities did not fail to disappoint this week when they voiced their complaints over the so called #OscarsSoWhite diversity catastrophe that plagued both this and last year’s homogenous Academy Award nominations. Despite a fairly diverse array of movies released in 2015, including F. Gary Gray’s Straight Outta Compton, fellow USC alum Rick Famuyiwa’s Dope, Peter Landesman’s Concussion and Ryan Coogler’s Creed, not a single person of color was nominated for an acting role, either male or female, and Mexican director Alejandro González Iñárritu was the only non-white filmmaker to be nominated for Best Director (for the second year in a row).

In a rapid-fire response to the backlash, the Academy has announced several initiatives to implement in the next few years, including “an ambitious, global campaign to identify and recruit qualified new members who represent greater diversity.” Clearly, the #OscarsSoWhite campaign made some positive influence on a systemically-flawed industry, but the problem doesn’t end there. Along with identifying new talent, they’ve also proposed to prevent Academy members from awards-season voting if they haven’t been active in the last ten years, a change that some members feel is misguided. Retired director and Academy voter Sam Weisman states it’s “a hastily put-together reaction to a firestorm” that ultimately ignores deeper issues.

The attempt to put restrictions on older voters stems from the idea that most Academy voters are primarily white men who — stuck in the infamous Hollywood studio system of the past — only hire other white men. In 2012, Los Angeles Times reported that 94 percent of Academy voters were white and of that group, 77 percent were male. Presumably, these are the same white men occupying positions of power as — to borrow a phrase from long-time Academy voter Tab Hunter — the “backbone of Hollywood,” the same men that choose whether to, say, hire (or more appropriately, not hire) a black director or latino actress for a lead role. But, as some members have pointed out, they aren’t entirely to blame. By restricting these member’s voting rights, they are only superficially attempting to abate the maelstrom, rather than examining a deeper issue at large — one that extends beyond a single hashtag and the number of older members allowed to vote.

The problem does not have to do with who wins what award — an award that is in no way indicative of ticket sales, and subsequently audience reach. The true problem lies in who is cast or hired in the first place. Newly-awarded Emmy winner Viola Davis has said as much this past week when discussing the Oscars. In an interview with Entertainment Tonight she asks pointedly, “You can change the academy, but if there are no black films being produced, what is there to vote for?” Of course, the problem becomes ever increasingly muddied when its clear that producers and studios often hire filmmakers and actors based on awards and accolades, but not all decisions are made around these factors.

There’s only so much an organization can do if the players within and around it aren’t willing to change — but to target members purely based on their age and lack of recent activity perpetuates a stereotype of another kind, one that seems to claim that just because a member may be old and white and male probably means that they’re racist and stuck in the past. That isn’t to say that I claim allegiance with Academy Award nominee Charlotte Rampling — who earlier this week claimed that the outrage was “racist to white people.” Rather, I feel that the part of the Academy’s response to the fervor was only an attempt to dissuade rather than change. If we are truly to reach an age of equality and understanding, however, satisfying one side of the line by blindly restricting the other encourages widespread hostility and resentment, instead of allowing both sides a chance to speak.

Clearly, the awards are an important venue to discuss this change — as this year’s host Chris Rock will address in the opening monologue when the show airs in February — but the Oscars outrage shouldn’t be viewed as the end all, be all in terms of successful change, because despite stoking the fire of an ongoing dialogue, it has also raised further problems among voters, possibly spurring even deeper rooted prejudice on the other side. In actuality, the issue at hand is much larger and grander in scope than who or what a bunch of industry elite vote for at the end of the year — and the public should take this into account when sharing or retweeting.

Minnie Schedeen is a a junior majoring in cinema and media studies.  Her column “Film Fatale” runs on Mondays.