Here we are again; for the second year in a row there’s outrage over the whitewashed Oscar nominations. The Academy has churned out another bleached list of nominees. Considering the backlash they received last year, you would expect a change. But 2016 is repeating history and writing out the achievements of people of colour in the film industry. The ongoing debates over the lack of diversity have highlighted how many complex facets there are to this necessary conversation. Perhaps this year we can try to grasp how this controversy isn’t just about a lack of acknowledgment or internalised racism. Paradoxically, it’s about the how the industry itself has caused this, and yet the Oscar nominations encourage their practices, creating a vicious cycle.

In response to the 2015 controversy, the Academy’s president Cheryl Boone Issacs said that the organisation were ‘committed to seeking out diversity’ in all their nominees. Interesting, especially since all twenty of the acting nominees this year are white. Furthermore, films that have either actors or directors of colour, such as Creed and Straight Outta Compton, only received nominations for their white stars. It’s almost taunting. Of course, there is the matter of meritocracy, the very principle the Oscars are established upon. It is possible that these white actors deserved the nominations more. During an interview with the BBC, actor Michael Caine said ‘you can’t vote for an actor because he’s black.’ Firstly, as true as this is Michael, we cannot just talk about black actors. The media seems to have piggybacked onto this idea of it only being an issue with the lack of black nominees. If we are really talking about diversity, it is about all people of colour, the LGBTQ+ community and those with disabilities. Secondly, I find it difficult to believe that not one actor in those communities deserved to be among those acting nominations for two years in a row. What about Idris Elba’s critically acclaimed performance in Beasts of No Nation, or Ian McKellen’s outstanding performance in Mr. Holmes? Unfortunately, Boone’s claim becomes superficial and futile, a bid to calm the racial media storm.

But should we really be surprised by this lack of diversity when we consider who it is that votes? A study by the LA Times found that in 2012 nearly 94% of the Academy’s 6,000 members were caucasian, 77% were male with a median age of 62: an overwhelming amount of white voters followed by an overwhelming amount of white nominees. This correlation doesn’t indicate member’s racism, but rather that these older, white men are less likely to identify with or experience a film in the same way the ethnic landscape of America and other countries does. These members are hardly representative of the their diversity.

Former president of the Academy, Frank Peirson, argued that there is no reason for these industry professionals to represent the entire population and average film viewer. By voicing this opinion he only highlighted the whitewashing within the industry itself. The Academy’s responsibility for their choices is almost dispelled by the limited roles and jobs open to people of colour in the industry. If not cast as peripheral, secondary characters, people of colour, as Selma’s David Oyelowo encapsulates, are ‘celebrated more for when [they] are subservient’, never ‘being in the centre of [their] own narrative driving it forward.’ Recent examples such as 12 Years a Slave and The Butler only prove Oyelowo’s point. Perhaps this lack of leading roles, or just roles in general, is the root cause of the Academy Awards’ peroxide nominees.

However, The Oscars are undoubtedly the most prestigious and influential award ceremony. According to Box Office Mojo, the nod of approval from the Academy saw last year’s nominee’s box office revenue increase by more than 69%. Their endorsement leads to wider audiences, financial success and ultimately more popularity. Electing all white nominees conveys a dangerous message that diversity is expendable in the industry, perpetuating and confirming that white, straight actors are what achieve success for studios and their parent companies. This entirely shuts out a necessity or encouragement of diversity within the film industry. And yet, the majority of white roles within films are representative of a blank space that a person of diversity could have more than adequately filled.

Although appalling, this repeated episode has re-sparked a dialogue about the painful lack of diversity within the film industry. Boone Issacs responded to this year’s controversy with the pledge that ‘the Academy is taking dramatic steps to alter the makeup of [their] membership’ to engender ‘much-needed diversity’. Let’s hope this year’s promise of dramatic change isn’t as empty as the last and that it has a positive knock-on effect for the industry as a whole.

Rebecca Newson

Featured image courtesy of Armando Arorizo