Hollywood's Whitewashed Diversity*

With the award season fully underway, eyebrow have been going up over the lack of diversity in the recent Academy Awards nominations announcement. Immediately after the January 15 announcements, social media, Twitter in particular, went into a major uproar. The hash tag #OscarsSoWhite went viral after the Academy revealed that all 20 male and female contenders in the acting categories are white.

The Academy’s first black woman president, Cheryl Boone Isaacs, reported to New York magazine blog Vulture “that the organization does not have a diversity problem ‘at all.’” However, many fans, actors, and the like would have to disagree with this sentiment, considering the predominantly white list of artist nominations. This year’s Academy Awards is the whitest Oscars since 1998. Many people have expressed their frustrations as more disappointment than surprise, (i.e. CNN LA correspondent David Daniel “#OscarNoms No female directors, screenwriters, or cinematograhers. No actors of color. #diversity”) because this is neither the first, nor the second time that this has happened. In the last 30 years, the acting categories have been completely devoid of non-white nominees a total of five time (1989, 1992, 1996, 1998, and 2015). Though we supposedly live in a “post-racial” society, it seems the Academy has not received that memo.

This white-washing of the Oscars is quite significant, considering that one of the films snubbed, Selma only received two nominations: “Best Picture” and “Best Song” for Glory (John Legend and Common), without an actor or director nomination. Despite high marks from critics and having the best review for “Best Picture” (receiving a score of 99) of all the nominations, British actor David Oyelowo missed out on a nod for Best Actor for his powerful and chilling performance of Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Academy failed recognize the visionary young black Ava DuVernay in the “Best Director” category. Had DuVernay been nominated, she would have made history as the first ever black female to be nominated in that category. Films like Selma remind audiences how relevant and worthy of a discussion the film’s poignant subject matter is. Particularly in light of the unrest over the killings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner in Ferguson and New York, respectively, and even locally, echoing heavily on the American conscience, there’s a need for a film such as Selma to remind the country of what has happened and continues to happen…and how we still need change.

A year ago, it appeared as though the Academy had made some strides in diversity. 12 Years of Slave won “Best Picture” along with the ground-breaking win from Lupita Nyong’o in the Best Supporting Actress category. Additionally, Alfonso Cuaron was the first Hispanic man to win Best Director, while Chiwetel Ejiofor won “Best Actor” and Captain Phillips star Barkhad Abdi won “Best Supporting Actor”. Those seemed to be the major talking points, but this year, the nods made a drastic turn.

In response to this lack of diversity, many fans and actors took to Twitter to voice their support for fellow actors:

“So #OscarNoms hmm. Shout out to my brother #DavidOyelowo you’ve been robbed but you’re not defined by this and your talent can’t be taken.” ~ @NoelClarke

#OscarsSoWhite that even The Lego Movie didn't get nominated for Best Animated Film because Morgan Freeman voiced a character. ~ @ShaunKing

The significance of these awards has always been a controversial interest. Now some may argue that the Golden Globes was full of diversity, which is true; however, much of that diversity came from the television genre. Others have given up hope, realizing that waiting for the Academy to recognize diversity and talent may be an infinitely long wait. Since the Academy’s birth, African Americans have had a complex, abstruse relationship with the Academy Awards. Whether they are nominated for roles such as boxers, sharecroppers, drug addicts, abused or scorned women, welfare mothers, maids, psychics, drug dealers, prisoners, or simply not nominated at all, there is hardly an amicable relationship.

Although it is hard to ignore the righteous anger, one can’t help but ask: do actors, actresses, and directors really need the Academy’s approval of their acting talents and gifts?

*As seen also in The Berkeley Graduate

Elysium: Voyage to Another World

Set in the year 2154, where the very wealthy live on a man-made space station while the rest of the population resides on a ruined Earth; a man takes on a mission that could bring equality to the polarized worlds.

Elysium (starring Matt Damon) is what I would like to call a sci-fi/political thriller, and if you have seen District 9 then you know this is basically a follow-up from that film. Essentially what director Neill Blomkamp is doing with this film stirring up our brains so that we can further question the way society is handling certain issues such as health care, immigration, political and military power, even the cruel treatment of women and children (Just think political Mad Max). I find this to be quite significant and very relevant. I always love a good film that can evoke political messages related to today's society and still entertain, brilliant! (This film does that, but it could have been better.)

Imagine the Earth severeley neglected, violence-ridden, grimy, and slowly falling into despair...that's what Los Angeles looks like in this film set in the future. The rich have everything they need and could possibly want plus more, while the poor suffer to make ends meet and survive to see another day. Sounds very familiar...One begins to understand what it means when they say "art imitates life."Elysium as a film does not introduce anything that we do not already know, however it does remind us what could be if change does not take place from every angle of the spectrum. I appreciate what the film offers, but just like the kids from the ATT commercial..."We want more!!!" Elysium re-ignites the conversation flame, but it just needs that extra push to really take off into space.

Now here is where it gets a little tricky, as much as I appreciated the actors/actresses involved in this film, I feel this is where the film meets its downfall. As a whole, the character development was weak despite the stars who were involved. Of course Matt Damon plays the lead role of Max DeCosta and pretty much delivers on that role, but his role seemed quite predictable and had the potential for more character growth. Then you have Jodie Foster, who plays Secretary Rhodes, who really under performs her role. I understand that she needs to maintain control and power and does not want to appear weak, but it just seemed to lack depth (but maybe that was the intention). Unfortunately, her character is pretty much already revealed from the previews, which is rather disappointing. Once again potential character development that is not to help move the story forward. Now one character that probably only needs minor tweeking is that of Kruger (played by Sharlto Copley). This guy nailed the role of a high-charged, sociopath who has no sympathy or respect for human life. He is the "elephant in the room" that was needed for this film. Kruger was definitely a highlight and may have even stole a little thunder from Max. So one would think with the combination of all these characters it would be a perfect mix....not quite. Although each character had various emotions that impact us in different ways, it seems the impact was short-lived. Just at the moment when you want to hate someone, care for someone, or cry, the feeling is snatched away.

On the flip side, visually the film is actually quite stunning both the parts on Earth and in Elysium. The imagery is quite electrifying from the use of the human-like robots, to the weapons used, to the obvious space station 'Elysium'. In many ways, one might want to escape to another world, just to breathe new air (literally). In addition to the visual, there was actually an element that may have been a flaw, but it seemed to work for the film. On some occasions during the film there were moments of shakiness, which kind of added to the gritty, ruggedness of futuristic, poverty-stricken LA. Whereas the shots in Elysium were almost picture-perfect and crystal clear. There was no doubt that we as the viewer got the opportunity to step into two totally different worlds, but still had a relationship with the other. Obviously there was a sizable budget involved and they used every penny strategically.

I must admit though, Elysium cleverly used science fiction to present the symbolism between past Reaganomics to today's Tea Party. There is no denying that immigration is definitely a current issue and probably will remain so, unless drastic measures are taken and recognized. And it was quite evident from the past election that the 1% want to make sure that you are reminded of their paradise lifestyle and how if you "don't got it" then you do not belong. Elysium also reminds us of the unsafe working conditions that many individuals face daily on their jobs, and how this can lead to terminal sickness or even worse death. It would also refresh my memory regarding all the many issues surrounding medical/health care. Even with this movie touching upon all these provocative, sensitive topics (issues), the could have been strengthen with more character development versus just action...action. In some cases, action can be a good thing. However, I think this was the type of movie that really could have been even greater if the characters would be able to bridge the gap a little more with the issues addressed in the film.

Overall, Elysium provides a film backdrop of what it means to survive in world that is against you, to sacrifice for the greater good, and maintain hope when you just want to give up and fade in the wind.

Rating: 7.5 out of 10