On NPR today, film critics were discussing how there weren't enough minority nominees for the Oscars this year. I'm paraphrasing here, but one of them said something to the effect of..."If the goal is to increase diversity in acting and directing, these nominations won't help." Oh, THAT'S the goal of the Oscars?
NEWSFLASH: The goal of the Oscars is to reward excellence in film, not tick off boxes on the Diversity Chart.
I would understand this sort of argument if the Academy had shown some sort of bias towards racial or sexual minorities in recent years. However, last year's Best Picture victory of 12 Years a Slave and nomination of The Dallas Buyers Club are clear evidence to the contrary. In my humble opinion, 12 Years a Slave did not rise to the level of Best Picture winner. So, why did it win?
If there is a bias in the Academy, it is, in fact, in the opposite direction. If you make a film about the HIV epidemic, the Civil Rights movement, or the tragedy of the slave trade, you will likely be rewarded by the Academy. Good luck getting nominated for a film that casts the government regulator as the villain. Bias is inherent in all choices, including my own (yay for well-done science fiction and British people!). It's not a secret that the politics of the Academy tilts rather dramatically to the left. There's nothing wrong with this, but we should all be aware of our own biases before we make important choices. I try to discard my own political biases (no doubt unsuccessfully at times) when I select the films in my WORLD FAMOUS LIST OF BEST FILMS OF THE YEAR (COMING LATER THIS MONTH!)
I am uncomfortable with the idea that we should setting aside x number of nominations every year for certain types of people. Each nomination should be set aside for those most deserving of the award, and no one else.
