UMass Lowell Connector Logo

The Oscar may glitter, but it isn’t gold

Jeffrey Cullen
UML Student

The Academy Awards have been one of the most notable and glitzy celebrations of film for decades. The gold, faceless man is an eternal goal for countless actors and actresses. But the glistening image of that goal is being tarnished. This year’s nomination lineup has been under harsh criticism for its lack of diversity, sparking a movement for a boycott against the Oscar’s amongst many in the film community including Jada Pinkett and Will Smith, as well as Spike Lee.

The explanation some give in defense of this year’s choices is that the lack of diversity is just chance, that the best performances just happened to be done by white actors. But looking at how the winners are chosen is quite telling. The victor is voted by the Academy of Motion Picture. A year ago, The L.A. Times reported that the members of the Academy were 94% white. By comparison, in the last government census the United States population was shown to be only 37% white. While members of the Academy hold firmly that race is nowhere on their radar when considering their options, the drastic underrepresentation within the Academy cannot be another “by chance” occurrence. When the body that makes the final decision is dominated by one group, equal and fair judgement can never be guaranteed.

But diversity is not a new challenge for the Academy Awards. The hashtag “#OscarsSoWhite,” has been brought back in to describe a scene that feels all too familiar. Criticism of the award show for its representation of race can be seen as far back as 1996. But non-white members of film were not the only ones who lacked recognition. Women, specifically older actresses, were not given the shot at gold. Notable actresses like Jane Fonda and Helen Mirren were not nominated in place of younger actresses like Jennifer Lawrence and Brie Larson. But the bar against woman does not end in acting. Directing proved to be, once again, a male dominated category with no women receiving a nomination.

But the Academy is not blind to this and, to their credit, have decided to take this issue head on. On January 22, 2016 the organization announced its new initiative to diversify its own members. The plan seems to try and target members of the Academy who are out of touch with today’s film as it adds a new ten year tenure to each member, only to be renewed if they are considered “active in motion pictures during that decade.” This is a big step, one that may even rectify their past missteps, but it may not be enough to save this year’s show. With the amount of discontent and anger already out in the open and covering social media, it will be nearly impossible for the show to escape. What the plan gives hope for is maybe not next year, but the years to come. It will definitely be slow but the identity of the Oscar’s is being fundamentally altered to one that actually fits modern film. In the end, the Academy is making attempting to make equality in film much closer than it was before.