In our February print issue, Conor Scully reflected on the wider cultural ramifications of the lack of diversity amongst this year’s Oscars nominees. Last week The Hist and DU Film co-hosted a debate on the motion “This House Would Boycott the Oscars”. Fionnuala Egan went along to see what TCD students had to say on the issue.
The Academy Awards profess to recognise excellence in cinematic achievement but lack diversity in both their judging panel (94% white, 77% male) and nominees; 2016 marks the second year in a row in which all twenty contenders in the acting categories are white. That Hollywood has a major problem with representation was uncontested in the debate. The discussion hinged upon whether or not we should engage with the Awards at all, and whether a boycott is the most effective way of tackling the issue.
Several members of the opposition suggested that the awards show itself is not particularly relevant and that to boycott it would just be “buying into” a competition which is only about money. The real responsibility, suggests Alex Puiu, lies with the consumers. It is box-office earnings which determine whether diverse films get made. Proposition countered that the Academy Awards have a direct impact on public perception of films, with guest speaker Maria Hylton citing the fact that a “Best Picture” winner takes in an average increase of $20 million in ticket sales. Furthermore, the Academy determines what is seen as valuable and what is seen as “normal”. They currently push a stale narrative which either erases minorities entirely or reduces them to a mere stereotype.
There was also disagreement on the boycott’s potential to cause any real change. Cahal Sweeney suggested that the boycott is a self-serving course of action undertaken by Hollywood’s “down and outs” who are merely using it as an excuse to appear enlightened. This does not, however, explain the involvement of actors such as George Clooney or Mark Ruffalo, who have both been lauded by the Academy.
Opposition also consistently stressed that the problem was not with the Oscars themselves, but with Hollywood as an institution. Cormac Henehan addressed this by emphasising that boycotting the awards and attacking Hollywood as an institution are not mutually exclusive endeavours. He reminded us that the proposition were not saying that the boycott will end all systematic oppression, but that it represents one step on the long road of change. The opposition expressed concern about what kind of change this would be. Ines Niarchos insisted upon the need for real, deep-seated change rather than change emerging from a hastily concocted PR move. They feared that this boycott may become no more than a “hashtag campaign” which people would misinterpret as progress. The proposition vehemently disagreed with this, arguing that a boycott would allow us, as Lorna Staines puts it, to “hit them where it hurts”: financially! Fewer actors present at the ceremony would lower incentive to watch the awards, and fewer viewers threatens sponsorship. A boycott also promotes a discourse which does have a tangible effect. For example, it was intense public scrutiny which led to the significant change in the Academy’s voting system.
There were strong points made on both sides of the debate. The opposition’s point that the awards merely reflect our racist, misogynistic and transphobic society is interesting, but fails to prove why this is more important than providing equal opportunities to all. Hylton, a black female filmmaker, emphasised that she wants to succeed because she is the best at her role, not because she is black or a woman. However, she would not currently have the same opportunity as a white man to achieve this recognition. Making an effort to award diversity would help to create the change that society needs. Proposition convincingly demonstrated that it is worth engaging with the Awards as they are very powerful, in that they provide films with a public platform and a financial reward. Moreover, any change, albeit small, is a good thing. A boycott is not the only way to bring in change and the opposition’s suggestion to bring in new legislation and increase government funding for disadvantaged groups in the industry were compelling. However, there is no reason why these changes can’t be enacted in conjunction with the boycott. The motion passed.
Chair Dr. Ruth Barton, Lecturer in Film Studies, closed the debate by remarking that it is up to us, the audience, to ensure this drive for change continues after the boycott. She also raised an interesting question: does everybody have an equal responsibility to partake in this boycott? This issue was introduced by the opposition when they emphasised the valuable platform that Chris Rock, this year’s host, has. Would it really be a victory if he were to remove himself from the conversation? It may be more appropriate for those who have benefitted from the systematic discrimination to use their position of privilege to denounce the injustice, rather than to suggest that it should be the burden of those who have faced greater barriers in getting to the same position. This question lends a lot of nuance to the debate and it was a pity it was not discussed more. Finally, Dr Barton reminds us that we must consider our own role. We too are part of the problem, but we can also be part of the solution by refusing to watch the awards show, thus partaking in a boycott of our own.
