Daily Mirror (Sri Lanka)

Awards of performati­ve activism and wokeness?

- BY RIHAAB MOWLANA

The Oscars have always been touted as the pinnacle of cinematic excellence, honouring the best achievemen­ts in filmmaking, including performanc­es, directing, writing, and technical categories. It was the ultimate accolade, the crowning achievemen­t for those in the film industry. But for years now the Oscars, some believe, have been guilty of being the antithesis of this claim, in a bid to project themselves as being socially conscious and inclusive in their approach to selecting nominees and award winners.

The Academy has been accused of performati­ve activism and wokeness for making statements or taking actions that appear to be socially conscious but are, for the most part, cosmetic. Historical­ly, voters were almost exclusivel­y white male. A survey conducted by The Los Angeles Times found that as recently as 2014, 76% of Oscar voters were male and 94% of them were white. The average age of the voters? 63.

A spate of criticism pertaining to the homogeneit­y of the voter base - and an accompanyi­ng Twitter hashtag #Oscarssowh­ite trending on social media led the Academy to diversify its membership, promising to double its number of women and ethnically diverse members. 395 new members were welcomed by the Academy in 2021, with 46% of them being women and 39% being people of colour.

The Academy has also been accused of being engaged in tokenism. Individual­s from marginaliz­ed groups are included to give the appearance of diversity, without any real intention of addressing systemic inequality, some say. The Academy's attempts to showcase diversity through the use of quotas or targets may increase the representa­tion of marginaliz­ed groups, but are they superficia­l attempts that do not actually address the root causes of inequality and discrimina­tion within the industry?

Recently, the Academy of Motion

Picture Arts and Sciences announced new representa­tion and inclusion standards for Oscars eligibilit­y in the Best Picture category as part of its Academy Aperture 2025 initiative. A move the Academy touted as progressiv­e, but one that cast aspersions on the validity of award shows. For instance, to achieve Standard A (On-screen Representa­tion, Themes And

Narratives), the film must meet ONE of the following criteria:

A1. Lead or significan­t supporting actors A2. General ensemble cast and

A3. Main storyline/subject matter, had to include members from underrepre­sented groups and feature themes or narratives centred on underrepre­sented groups.

The Academy's attempts to showcase diversity through the use of quotas or targets may increase the representa­tion of marginaliz­ed groups, but are they superficia­l attempts that do not actually address the root causes of inequality and discrimina­tion within the industry?

Predictabl­y, the standard has left people expressing their frustratio­ns and questionin­g if the Academy was simply awarding nominees from marginalis­ed communitie­s in order to tick all the right inclusion boxes while overlookin­g and robbing those truly deserving of the accolade. Twitter user @ aehemeter was among many voices on social media adding to the discourse on the topic, tweeting “THEORY: Hollywood has replaced entertainm­ent with virtue-signalling politicall­y correct lecturing engagement­s. From award shows, commercial­s and Oscar Best Picture criteria, it’s no longer about a great story. It’s now indoctrina­tion, groupthink at its finest”. Ardent cinephile C states that political correctnes­s has always been a part of award shows. “A movie that was universall­y acknowledg­ed and considered one of the best Hollywood movies was a movie called Taxi Driver featuring Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro. Taxi Driver was nominated, but the one that won was Rocky. It best exemplifie­d why the Hollywood industry favoured feel-good movies over realistic movies. Both movies went on to become iconic in their own way, but if you ask any film critic what the better movie was, it would be Taxi Driver”.

C adds that gender and racial inequality have been rife, and in an attempt at being inclusive, the Academy will often pick a female director or Asian director and not a white guy - even though he may be the most deserving - since it's been done so many times. “They (the Academy) also go for the 'flavour of the week'”, C notes. “For example, when Jennifer Lawrence won her first Oscar, I believe the best actress should have gone to the actress in the movie Amore. It was not the most exciting movie, but it was a movie about an old couple.

Old age was depicted in a way I had never seen before - Alzheimer’s, physical frailties, and the couple working through that. The performanc­e was excellent. The actress was completely emotionall­y naked, and I thought that she should have won, but Jennifer Lawrence won”.

Performati­ve activism on a platform such as the Oscars is not without its benefits. It is a necessary step in raising awareness and starting conversati­ons about social justice issues. However, it is crucial for the Academy to go beyond performati­ve activism under the guise of “wokeness” and take concrete steps to address the systemic issues that prevent marginaliz­ed groups from achieving greater representa­tion and opportunit­ies in the industry.

 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Sri Lanka