Dr Yannis Tzioumakis is Senior Lecturer in Media and Communication Studies in the University of Liverpool’s Department of Communication and Media
Ever since the announcement of this year’s Oscar nominations the Academy of Motion Pictures has come under fierce attack for lack of diversity in its roster of nominations. Accounts of the industry’s membership constitution highlight how the members of the Academy are 94% white, 77% male and with a median age of 62, which seemingly translates into Oscar nominations that reflect this membership, while already prominent members of the African American community such as Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett Smith have announced that they will boycott the upcoming Oscar ceremony prompting other members of the Hollywood community to do the same. And of course social media are on fire debating the problem from a number of perspectives when not overwhelmed by hate speech and trolling.
I would like to look at this issue from a different angle, one that focuses on how Oscar nominations are achieved. Although in an ideal world all films eligible for awards would be viewed by members of the academy, the truth of the matter is that this can never happen. Films that are considered “Oscar worthy” are promoted as such from the start with their distribution companies (that normally underwrite the very significant marketing costs of releasing the films) mounting Oscar campaigns.
Such campaigns involve “for your consideration” advertisements in the trade press (Variety, Hollywood Reporter, etc.), promotions with key reviewers, bloggers and other significant tastemakers who highlight the “Oscar worthy” elements of particular films – be it a performance, cinematography, screenplay, etc.) and especially organising screenings for or sending DVD screener copies to the 6000 or so members of the Academy in time for them to see the films and vote before the deadline for the nominations.
And this is where a lot of the issues take place. Small films, which traditionally have been characterised by the participation of diverse talent, cannot be pushed very far. Their distributors, normally small independent companies, cannot afford the costs of promoting them. Only a handful of such films, especially those handled by studio specialty divisions such as Fox Searchlight or the once upon a time leader of the specialty film market,
Disney-owned Miramax, can be promoted to an extent that they might have a chance at the awards. But these divisions have now been shuttered with Fox Searchlight and Sony Pictures Classics being the only companies to remain in place from an original pool of over half a dozen such divisions that supplied much needed diversity with films such as Slumdog Millionaire (2008) and 12 Years a Slave (2014), both by Fox Searchlight.
On the other hand, the big Hollywood studios continue to make films on the basis that they could be easily marketed to demographics wide enough to return their investment in production and marketing costs. Urban comedies featuring characters from diverse backgrounds have been a staple of Hollywood cinema in recent years (with the current No 1 film at the North American box office, Ride Along 2, starring black American superstars Kevin Hart and Ice Cube being such a film).
But these films do not travel as well outside the US and are rarely considered “Oscar material” (for instance, last year’s Get Hard (2015), also starring Kevin Hart, took $90 million in the US theatres and just $16 million in the rest of the world). This leaves occasional prestige productions such as Dreamgirls (2006), The Help (2011) The Butler (2013) and Selma (2014) or films featuring superstars such as Denzel Washington and Will Smith to provide a combination of commercial success and critical recognition that often translates to Oscar nominations and awards.
So what can this tell us? It tells us that the Academy operates within an industry that is run by distribution and marketing. Distribution and marketing – how a film can be sold and to whom – decides what films are financed in Hollywood, what independently produced films are picked up for release, what films are being promoted for awards, what films have more chances to be promoted more effectively, and to some extent what films are seen by the Academy members (with small distributors often not able to send 6000 DVDs to academy members).
Of course, Academy members should make every effort to watch all the films presented “for their consideration” but as several reports and articles have repeatedly noted over the years, only a few films get the attention they might deserve, while many members do not even vote in the nominations and awards ballots.
In this respect, while the Academy members certainly need to reflect on why more often than not they tend to show their preference for films and talent that might lack diversity in terms of race, gender or sexual orientation, we also need to remember that the Academy is part of an industry that operates based on practices that adhere first and foremost to economics.
Distributors do not just finance and release films. They determine what films can reach us and what should be seen as deserving due recognition by the industry.
Piracy (and fear of it) has been a huge issue for Oscar nomination promotions. Many films are sent “for consideration” months before they are released as many key releases take place over Christmas, too close to the deadline for the nominations. So making these films available (in various way) in advance puts them in danger of being leaked even before they are released. The Academy has tried a few ways, all of which have disadvantages. Sending dvds is a massive cost, arranging (multiple) screenings in LA, SF, NY and London (where most of the academy members live) is more cost effective but if you are a member of the academy how many films will you go to see over a few week period in special screenings arranged for you? 5? 10? More? The password/streaming is another way but it is also susceptible to piracy. I think screenings and dvd has been the most common ways in the recent past to put forward films for consideration and tand they have problems. And if the academy is to do the legwork, how many films/people should it limit itself to consider? There are about 100 distributors releasing films theatrically every year. If each of them considers one or more elements of one or more of their films ‘Oscar worthy’ we are talking about a huge number of “considerations”.
It’s a good point you make. Maybe then there should be added focus on how Academy members (and let me say, the make-up of that organisation still needs to come under closer scrutiny) access movies to nominate and vote for. I mean who needs to send out 6000 DVD screeners when an email with a password accessible link to an online copy will do? It’s not as if peer-to-peer and streaming technology is new. And if it is still too much to send out 6000 emails (and I can see for very small operations it still could be) then how about just one to the Academy and let them do the leg work. Of course, competing with a heavily promoted film would hold an independent at a serious disadvantage but it’s an improvement and buys an in with those capable of creating a buzz about ‘this brilliant little indie flick I’ve just seen’. Just a thought.