This says nothing of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences\u2019 predominance of white male voters. After the social justice campaign #OscarsSoWhite debuted in 2015 and created awareness around the Academy\u2019s lack of diversity, steps were taken to better address gender and racial disparities among their membership. Necessary discussions about who\u2019s voting for the winners in the past few years have helped change the narrative about the Oscars and their canon. Since then, the results have been mixed, even as the Academy has taken steps to diversify and modernize its membership policies.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.deepfocusreview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/oscars-2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Again looking at the Best Picture winners: Moonlight<\/em><\/strong><\/a> and The Shape of Water<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, two indie films about feelings of Otherness, took home the Best Picture statues in 2017 and 2018, respectively, showing steps in the right direction. Green Book<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, a film that presents a discussion about race in America with safe, pandering commercialism, took the Academy a step back when it won Best Picture in 2019. Voters once again made progress by naming the South Korean masterpiece Parasite<\/em><\/strong><\/a> as the Best Picture last year, in an unprecedented choice that gave a non-English film the award for the first time.<\/p>\n Even so, there\u2019s still a troubling lack of inclusion for women directors and stories about people of color. But through the lens of inclusivity, the Academy is taking baby steps. The 93rd Academy Awards ceremony in 2021 might be the first year in my life so far where only two of the nominated directors are white men. There are many such firsts among this year\u2019s nominees, which show the Academy making progress.<\/p>\n Of course, the Oscars have always had some caveat for film fans to consider next to the awards and nominees. Contemporary political and economic motivations drive voters each year, making the winners less about artistic appreciation and more about making a statement for the times. Some considered Green Book<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u2019s win as the conservative old guard of Hollywood voting for a traditional story over something defiantly modern from that year, such as Spike Lee\u2019s BlacKkKlansman<\/em><\/strong><\/a>. As much as Hollywood is often mislabeled as a den of liberals, for financial reasons, Hollywood also resists becoming too radical to avoid alienating a portion of the ticket-buying or VOD-renting audience. It\u2019s sound marketing to appeal to the largest possible audience to earn a larger take at the box office, and so Hollywood often tries to appeal to the middle.<\/p>\n Then there\u2019s the promotional side of things. Very often it\u2019s not about acknowledging the best film or performance but falling prey to an aggressive \u201cfor your consideration\u201d campaign to draw voters\u2019 attention. Harvey Weinstein, among others, was one of the fiercest Oscar campaigners in the late 1990s before his recent conviction for rape and sex crimes. His promotional efforts fuelled Oscar upsets such as Shakespeare in Love<\/em>\u2019s victory over the favorite Saving Private Ryan<\/em> in the 1999 Best Picture race. Studios invest in campaigns for their properties because it creates awareness about the studio\u2019s brand and output. For years, Miramax was synonymous with Oscar season because of Weinstein\u2019s campaigning. The Miramax logo was, for a time anyway, a symbol of Oscar-worthiness. Now it\u2019s a symbol of Hollywood\u2019s willingness to suppress and exploit in the name of the business.<\/p>\n An awareness of these political and economic motivations behind the nominating and awarding process, along with the ongoing debate about the Academy\u2019s historical lack of diversity, has led to a stain on the Academy\u2019s reputation. Viewership of the ceremony itself has continued to decline over the years. And movie viewership continues to fragment away from the theatrical distribution model into countless streaming options, which means it\u2019s more difficult for viewers to find nominated films, thus it\u2019s challenging for a single film to reach the zeitgeist and compel universal interest.<\/p>\n Maybe it\u2019s because the COVID-19 pandemic had led to decreased theatrical attendance, but the buzz around the 2021 ceremony seems lower than ever. Despite the Academy\u2019s leaps of inclusion, the audience no longer universally knows where to find the nominated films. Are they on Netflix, HBOMax, or Hulu? Can they be rented for $20 under the PVOD model? AMC\u2019s traditional \u201cBest Picture Showcase\u201d of back-to-back screenings of the Best Picture nominees isn\u2019t happening this year because of the coronavirus, not that Netflix titles would have been included given the streamer\u2019s minimization of theatrical distribution. There\u2019s no single source to find the nominees, which has an impact on the audience\u2019s willingness to engage in the Oscars. Movie people know where to look to see these titles, but the general audience seems disconnected. Maybe the fragmentation of movies is a symptom of how our culture has fragmented.<\/p>\n The question of whether the Oscars matter remains. They certainly cannot be viewed as the ultimate canon or source of quality, just as popular \u201cbest\u201d lists from the American Film Institute and Sight & Sound <\/em>have omissions and snubs that continue to spark debate. Any awards ceremony or list is bound to leave something out, which brings into question the entire idea of canonization.<\/p>\n Still, the Oscars matter to the movie industry because they support the business and egos of those involved. They\u2019re devices used to acknowledge successful careers, such as when someone wins an Oscar because \u201cit was their time\u201d and not necessarily because it was the best movie or best performance. Historically, the awards are a reflection of what was happening at the time, requiring one to consider not just the nominees and winners but the contributing factors to how those titles might have been selected. There\u2019s an entire story behind every year\u2019s nominees and how they were chosen, and very rarely does it have anything to do with pure artistic merit.<\/p>\n Even so, I think that debate is vital to the discourse about film. It\u2019s not so much about establishing the correct criteria for how the best films ever made should be selected and awarded. It\u2019s about using these attempts at creating an exemplar as a platform to work against, a springboard for a healthy conversation about movies. It\u2019s not the awards themselves that I love; it\u2019s the conversations I have about what won and what should\u2019ve<\/em> won. Year after year, the Oscar winners become arbitrary choices next to how they encourage people to celebrate the movies in their own way.<\/p>\n (Note:\u00a0This piece was originally posted on Patreon.<\/em>)<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.deepfocusreview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/oscars-3.jpg\")
If there\u2019s a modern equivalent to Miramax\u2019s zealous campaigns from twenty years ago, it has to be Netflix, which has saturated online advertising, billboards, talk shows, and magazines with ads to promote their Oscar-nominated features. No wonder titles such as Mank<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, The Trial of the Chicago 7<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, Ma Rainey\u2019s Black Bottom<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, and Pieces of a Woman <\/em>helped Netflix become the studio to receive the most nominations this year.<\/p>\n