Diary 2016 (Jan 23rd)- Racism at the Oscars?

Update: The Economist published an analysis a few days back:

It shows that the outrage is even more wrongly targeted than I thought. Blacks have won Oscars and do get speaking roles in proportion to their population, especially since the 2000s. But they are not getting enough good roles or top roles. Also, they account for only 6% of directors from 600 films between 2007 and 2013. It is an even worse picture for Hispanics and Asians. “ The whitewashing occurs not behind the closed doors of the Academy, but in drama schools and casting offices.” Instead of discussing the underlying problem, all the attention is directed at the glitzy Oscars.

Original article: Today the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences pledged to double the number of female and minority members of the Academy by 2020. Charlotte Rampling weighed in on the Oscars racism controversy, saying, “Perhaps the black actors did not deserve to make the final list…People will always say: ‘Him, he’s less handsome’; ‘Him, he’s too black’; ‘He is too white’ …” Michael Caine told BBC Radio 4, “You can’t vote for an actor because he’s black.”

They are right. In a way. It should be about picking the best, irrespective of ethnicity or skin color. The Academy is 94% white, 77% male and 86% aged over 50. Sometimes, its actions reflect blinkered vision and stupidity. There have been many glaring omissions in the past, which didn’t have anything to do with racism. They were consequence of the Academy’s ‘taste’.

There were movies such as Straight Outta Compton, Tangerine, Creed, Chi-Raq and Beasts of No Nation, which might have been unfairly overlooked. But the current focus on racism at the Oscars obscures the more vexing issue of racism in Hollywood. It avoids the question of how many decent roles are available for non-white actors, why is it something to shout about when your show or movie has well-written minority characters, why Caucasian actors continue to be cast in ethnic roles (putting aside all diversity talk, the last leads to a jarring viewing experience).

The episode, Indians on TV, of Aziz Ansari’s Masters of none contributed more to understanding the actual problem, than Spike Lee and Will Smith’s boycott and all the newsprint. Ansari’s character, Dev, is auditioning for a show called Three buddies. Two of the shortlisted actors are Indians. They cannot have two of the three buddies as Indians. One of the network executives forwards an email chain by mistake, which includes a joke along the lines of let them “curry favour”. Dev wants to leak the email to the media but his agent advises him against it, asking him to use it instead to get the role. As the executive tries to smooth things over by taking Dev to a Knicks game, he runs into Busta Rhymes, who tells him, “Don’t play the race card; charge it to the race card.”

This casual racism, this belief that audiences are not interested in watching nuanced depictions of religious, ethnic or sexual minority characters is the core problem. Everyone, actors, writers, directors have to play by the unwritten rules of the system. They blame the studio and network executives, who in turn blame the audiences. Fixing this lack of opportunity is a much more complicated task.

Last year, there was an interesting incident involving Matt Damon. While, his point about picking the best director is completely valid, his subsequent statement, “ When we’re talking about diversity, you do it in the casting of the film, not in the casting of the show” is indicative of two issues. Firstly, the problem flows from the top down. White males, recruiting white males to make movies and TV shows for white males. Also, maybe the pool itself of minority candidates is limited. There’s not much to choose from and

There brings me to another issue, I haven’t seen talked about much. It is in line with the myth of the tortured, struggling artist. Lawyers, engineers , doctors are expected to pay their dues by studying hard. Artists are expected to pay by struggling for a livelihood. Last year I read a few articles from British publications (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/11053178/Class-a-big-issue-in-arts-says-BBC-drama-boss.html , http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2014/sep/13/judi-dench-actors-held-back-by-wealth-divide-drama-school) about how difficult it is for young people from a relatively unprivileged background to enter into fields such as acting, journalism, publishing and arts-related fields in general. The expenses for the schools, followed by possible years of unpaid or low paying internships, means that you need to have family money or some form of support to think of making a career in the arts. The situation in the US or for that matter in most parts of the world is not very different. This Atlantic article says,

Poor and middle class students are extra likely to get stuck in unpaid internships…sector where the richest students were more likely to be found in unpaid positions? Government….Hollywood, Wall Street and, probably, a good chunk of New York Media. Wealthy unpaid interns, the study reported, tended to cluster in finance, the arts and entertainment.

This payment pattern would also have an impact on diversity in Hollywood. Blacks and Hispanics continue to lag way behind whites in wealth, as well as income (Asians are the exception). Everything is interlinked.

I don’t know what the solution is but it is definitely not adding a few women and minority representatives to the Academy. It is just a means for Hollywood to paper over the real issues, an excuse to pat itself on the back.