New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

However, let’s face it: awards are not given out strictly on merit. This occurs for various reasons, the most innocuous being that merit is entirely subjective. So, to pretend that any group of voters, even the illustrious (Ha!) Academy members, can tell us what is objectively “best,” particularly in art, is sophomoric. And, as we have seen, politics play into awards constantly and consistently. A campaign released a story about the fact that the psychiatrist’s home in The King’s Speech was used in a gay porno shoot. President Obama somehow decides to speak up on his favorite movie of the year (has he seen many, I wonder? Even the three hour Boyhood?).

More specifically, the industry and audiences are quite content to give out awards to actors and filmmakers on the basis of a whole gamut of variables with little or no connection to talent, including, most relevantly, on the basis of a past history of perceived unfairness towards the particular performer. Martin Scorsese was “overdue” was the argument for The Departed (he was, I agree). Sandra Bullock and Kate Winslet were overdue, they said. Then there are the awards we give out based on popularity. “I love her,” I hope she wins, is heard from voters to audiences to Oscarologists alike (myself included - joy at wins by Meryl Streep or expected wins by the likes of Jessica Chastain or Julianne Moore are but a few personal examples). And does anyone actually think that The Artist’s Jean Dujardin was the Best Actor in a year featuring Brad Pitt in Moneyball and Gary Oldman in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy?

So, if we accept that awards (a) are not – cannot - be solely about merit; and, as a corollary, (b) are given out for silly reasons including rewarding an individual for perceived past slights, then, surely, giving credit to an entire segment of the population in the face of a long history of past unfairness towards that group should be both palatable, more meaningful and hopefully even as transcendental than the former reasons.

I’m not saying the Oscars should look to award women and racial minorities until the numbers are evened out (it would take them over a century to achieve this). And, if I had a ballot, I would like to think I would fill it out mostly on merit. I merely mean that the time has long passed for the supposedly liberal bastion Hollywood to open its eyes to other stories beyond the straight-white-male narrative. In a year where a film appealing precisely to that, and with men in its name (Boyhood), is about to take the top prize, we simply cannot deny that stories about men have a natural advantage. Boyhood has resonated very well with men (including being named the top movie of the year by both New York Times film critics, and the President himself), and men make up more than three-quarters of the Academy. Boyhood’s win is poised to mark yet another link in the endless chain of male-domination in Hollywood.

So, if alongside yet another coronation of the triumph of the male, we manage to sneak in a few votes for a brave, tireless, and ambitious female actress turned filmmaker, and some for a charming, talented, and fascinating young African American female director, would that be such a bad thing? On the contrary, I posit, it is arguably the right thing.

Continued:       1       2       3       4