2018 marks the 90th Oscars, and, as would be expected, there is a lot of focus on that fact, both from within the Academy, and from outside observers. Sadly, despite the many celebratory events and posts on social media, the emphasis on 90 years, also places emphasis on the discrimination and lack of diversity the film industry has seen over that extensive period of time.
I’d first of all like to point out that this feature is in no way designed to bash the Oscars. I don’t think that a lack of racial or gender diversity within Oscar nominations is solely down to the voters at the Academy. Instead, I believe it is also a symptom of the industry at large. You can almost view the Oscar nominations as a microcosm of the industry’s quality output for that year (within reason, considering there are big blockbusters and small indies that won’t have made it into the ‘for your consideration’ pool), and thus Academy members can’t nominate the content that isn’t there. If people who aren’t straight white men aren’t being given the opportunities to helm films and tell their stories in cinema, they just can’t be nominated. Thus, by examining Oscar nominations, as much as it may indicate something about the Academy itself, the overarching influence is going to have been trickled down from the decisions made in executive offices years prior to any nominations. If the industry isn’t hiring a certain type of person, the Oscars don’t have the option to nominate them. Although, of course, there have been clear snubs in the past, but more on that later.
The disappointing history of the demographics Oscar nominations have gone to seems to be highlighted this year, not only because of the emphasis being placed on the fact that the Oscars have been around for nearly an entire century, but on the number of milestones that we are only just hitting the 90th time around. Seeing some of the historical nominations this year has created a feeling that is half triumphant, and half frustrated, as of course it is cause for celebration when we move forward with diversity, but when it comes after nine decades, it is sad that it hasn’t happened sooner.
One of the starkest milestones is the fact that only now has the Academy reached a point where all of its non-gender specific categories (i.e. all but acting) have nominated a woman at some point. It only happened this year, on the 90th try. Rachel Morrison became the first woman ever nominated for cinematography, for her brilliant work on Mudbound. Now, in the 90 years of the Oscars, there have been five nominations per year for cinematography for the past 51 years, and an average of about 10 per year for the previous 39. That is approximately 645 nominations, and only now has a single one gone to a woman. It is absolutely ludicrous.
Likewise, in the directing category, Great Gerwig (Lady Bird) is only the fifth woman ever nominated (all white), and Jordan Peele (Get Out) is only the fifth black director nominated (all men). Again, there have been five nominations per year in this category, so a total of around 450 nominations. With only five of those going to a woman, and another five going to black men, it is ridiculous. At least this category has had better racial diversity (read: not every nominee has been white) in recent years, with more minorities being nominated. With regards to Peele, he is also the first African-American to be nominated for writing, directing and producing in the same year, and is only the third person to ever do so for a directorial debut (it is quite a feat). Additionally, should he win for Original Screenplay, he will be the first black man to ever do so.
Of course, with the Oscars spanning 90 years, prejudice in a big bulk of that time didn’t just stem from the film industry; it was a society-wide problem. Discrimination had been rife; there was a huge race divide, and a woman’s place was in the kitchen. So, during at least a few decades of the Oscars’ existence, the lack of diversity was a more widely societal and human problem. That is not to say that that is not the case today, nor in the past few decades, but with barriers being broken down everywhere, the film industry is one of the most prominent sectors where gender and race disparity is still shockingly huge. Sadly, we live in a world were it is still the norm for the majority of people in executive and powerful positions, in any industry, to be straight white men. However, it is much rarer to see gaps in representation as large as we see in Hollywood (an industry based on art that is supposed to hold up a mirror to society). Just last year in film, women comprised only 34% of speaking parts, only 11% of all directors were women, and only 18% of all directors, writers, producers, executive producers, editors and cinematographers were women (Women and Hollywood, 2017 Statistics). Just to remind you, women make up 51% of the world’s population. Looking at the directors of the top 100 grossing films of 2017 proves a similar problem lies in race representation as well. Where only eight of last years top 100 directors were women (any race), only six were black, and five were Asian (USC’s ‘Inclusion in the Director’s Chair’ report, via The Hollywood Reporter). We live in a world where much less than 89% of the population is white, yet 89% of last year’s highest grossing directors were. Only approximately 77% of America’s population is white. None of this can be explained away by saying that only white men want to make films. Chances are statistical representation in industry will never exactly match up with population statistics, even in a world of completely equal opportunity, but the huge gulf of difference we currently see suggests there is a serious problem with opportunity and discrimination, and any progress towards eradicating such problems is moving at a glacial pace.
Diversity in the acting nominees (racial diversity as they are split by gender) is also showing signs of improvement, albeit it tends to fluctuate a lot. This year four of the 20 nominees aren’t white – a much better showing than the consecutive ‘Oscars so white’ years we had only a couple of ceremonies ago. The fluctuating nature of this type of inclusion still suggests there is a ways to go though.
Some might suggest that the progress and diversity seen in this year’s batch of nominees, as well as in last year’s, is due to the recent shake-up of the Academy’s membership. However, the assumption that a more diverse Academy will make for more diverse nominations is based on an assumption that people vote for people like themselves. This may be true to an extent, as it is likely that most people have an intrinsic internal bias that allows them to relate more to people who look like them or reflect their experiences, but people also have the conscious ability to choose and evaluate, using their taste to discern for themselves the quality of a piece of work. None of this is to say that the Academy wasn’t in need of a huge injection of diversity. Over the years, certain snubs are bound to have been down to discrimination (there isn’t much of a question), albeit others may have just happened to fall into the pile of snubs that year that also included white people or men. When you look at the diversity in the output of films into cinema in a given year, often the sad statistics are reflected in those of the Oscar nominations; the Oscars are generally a reflection of the current state of cinema, and if cinema isn’t producing the diverse content that people want and need, the Academy cannot nominate it.
Overall, if this year’s nominations are a sign of what is to come, then hopefully we are seeing a solid transition in the film industry towards telling a broader spectrum of stories, and allowing a broader spectrum of people to use their voices to do so.
