There are but a few certainties in life – taxes, death and The Oscars inciting indignant rage amongst the masses.

2016 seems to be the year of particularly intense debate. Personally inspiring a spectrum of opinion from”about bloody time” to “oh wait, the point’s been missed again”. Movements such as #Oscarssowhite, have once again been morphed into what was once a valid issue of the lack of diversity in film-making, which in turn is reflected in the Awards system, into a platform where people and groups from all opinions are scrambling to grab the microphone and scream their idiocy the loudest. In amongst the ignorant remarks, the finger pointing and the general dismal behaviour  on display, ego has once again won out to honest discussion.

Let me start from the beginning. Here is a FB post I made in haste last month:

The way the debate had been side-swiped into yet another black vs. white, us vs. them dialogue  was so damn off-putting and offensive I was going to forgo my usual Oscars rundown altogether. There are those who have dismissed the whole debate with the usual “they’re only films” – a tired point because you could say that about anything that isn’t personally important to you. Lives might not be saved with film (or maybe they are – if music can be said to save a life, or a book to be life-changing, why not a film?) and this debate certainly isn’t on par with other injustices going on in the world, however, it doesn’t mean debates like this are to be ignored. Film is part of the arts, its a culture and like any other form of arts and culture if it’s monopolized by an elite few, there will be no alternative but for it to become irrelevant and die.

The most galling non-argument that perhaps angers me more than being dismissive is the flippant idea that inclusiveness means just awarding films and people for their ethnic/minority “markers” at the expense of quality. Reading Guardian comments like “we should just give all the awards to black people for being black. Even if the film’s bad.” “It’s insulting to the filmmakers to give them awards for their film just because their <insert ethnicity> because it becomes about positive discrimination and not about the film. Genuinely good film will be overlooked”
A couple of points learned I took away from such insights:
1) The Guardian comment sections are quickly becoming middle version class YouTube comment section where reason rarely wins out – Adam Buxton should get on this and use it for this next BUG event
2) Some people need to check your prejudices at the door. Thank you for alerting me to the undeniable fact that because a film is made/stars people of colour it must automatically be of terrible quality. You learn something new everyday. I’ll tell that to Charles Burnett, Steve McQueen, Dee Rees and Ava DuVernay to name a few. Let’s leave them a little note advising they just quit while they’re ahead.

It’s not surprising that these ideas are prevalent considering the film industry is like any other institution – inherently prejudiced. The ideas of white, male, heterosexual superiority is reflected in the choices in what films get made. These films get the largest production budgets and marketing budget an in turn given the most exposure. This translates to the layman that they must be the best Hollywood has to offer. They are then celebrated as thus when really it’s become about key people doing for their own. There are people who have massive control over what the world consumes and in an industry that now seems to serve to squeeze independent/alternative film-making and concentrate on franchises, and creatively risk-adverse film-making – these become the films that are lauded as “The Best” . But are they really? I see instead the celebration of archaic homogeneity and a reflection of an industry that’s just really a boy’s game – an old white man’s game.

But the REAL reason for my dismay at the Oscar nominations were quite simply that they were confusingly ill-judged. For all the flip-flapping about there being no black nominees  I was more concerned about the following omissions:
1) How can CAROL be nominated for every major award but not Best Director or Best Film?
Where is the logic where you acknowledge the artistry of the production – the design, the costume, the script, the acting, the score – yet the person responsible for taking the helm and bringing all of this together is somehow not quite good enough, and the film just not quite up to par? Baffled isn’t even the word here (incensed is closer). Are they punishing Todd Haynes for having the audacity to make a film about women that doesn’t feature or rotate exclusively their raison d’etre – Men? I can only imagine this happened after a screening:
” a film about the 1950s? When men were men! And the women were also there… somewhere…probably in the kitchen.
Cate Blanchett looks exquisite…That Rooney scrubs up well too! Very Audrey Hepburn…she was around in the 50s!
Ah wonderful (false) memories of the Golden Years…
Wait where are the men?
Why is there more than one woman in this film?
With speaking parts?
And the speaking never hardly refer to men?
Who made this? It was a woman wasn’t it?
A MAN? A MAN made this? A gay man made a sympathetic love story about two women? And it ends without tragedy!
He must be stopped!
And we all know the way we deal with people like that around here!
OSCAR SNUB!
*But we have to acknowledge it was kinda good. I know – acknowledge the film for every category but the film itself and deliberately omit that Haynes guy’s contribution. That’ll teach him a confusing lesson!

2) Where’s TANGERINE – if there needs to be a trans film (because there always has to be a hot topic trend of film-making) why not this much better trans tale than the lace draped glossy “urgh-fest” sensation that is THE DANISH GIRL. There should have been at least a best actress nomination for Mya Taylor. Singing “Toyland”to a near empty nightclub (with the exception of friend-to-the-end Sin-Dee ) made me feel feelings:

That’s a feat in itself – I’ve been told I have an ice-box for a heart. I’ve even had it sung to me – awards for TANGERINE.

3) Where’s ASSASSIN in the foreign language category? Might it have been a bit too much for the Academy? A film designed for re-watching in its unrelenting aversion to explain itself, it can’t be denied that’s it’s a magnificent film, meticulously directed.

4) Elisabeth Moss – She certainly was QUEEN OF EARTH giving a tour-de-force performance but referring to my argument about budgets, this film was too small to even register on the radar of the average Academy member – 63 year-old white male.

5) Another female-orientated film, meticulously produced and readily ignored – THE DUKE OF BURGUNDY. I’m almost as indignant about this as CAROL.

Film quite simply needs to reflect the audiences that consumes it. That should the minimum right for audiences who hand their money over to feel included in the narratives they are given in return. With all the arguments against diversity in film with statistics being spouted about the percentage of people of colour versus the general population are all false arguments. Not only are those statistics outdated as populations around the world change but also quite frankly, they’re wrong. Excluding the fact that general population is not the same as cinema-going populations, how can any logical reasoning be drawn from the startling statistic that on average only 23% of films (worldwide) feature a female protagonist and a meager 31% had speaking parts for women? In a world where 0ver 50% of its population are women, are we saying women don’t go the cinema? Or don’t exist? Are we really still in the 50’s mindset that women should be seen (unless in the kitchen or bedroom) and not heard?

These films that embrace diversity are being made. They exist and they are fantastic. But as the industry is monopolized by a small group, they were summarily ignored by the time Awards season arrives. This equates to the idea that they’re not good enough, which is outrageous and angers those who work in film and those who love and consume film, every year. This debate was and should still be the central concern of those tired of certain kinds of films being celebrated over films that are on par or even better. That’s not to say that some of the nominated films haven’t been good even great – SPOTLIGHT, CAROL, 45 YEARS, EMBRACE OF THE SERPENT, LOOK OF SILENCE and WHAT HAPPENED MISS SIMONE – I’m and so many others are just not impressed with the calibre of the bigger awards nominations, SPOTLIGHT being the exception.

But this whole argument brings to the forefront the wider problems within the film industry. Working within different areas of film from production through to distribution and home cinema, I have learnt just how difficult a process it is for a film to be seen. I have heard many filmmakers lament that through all the long hours, the potential and sometimes actuality of financial ruin and sacrifices made to get production off the ground, their largest obstacle is getting their film seen. It seems there is deliberate sabotage afoot for aspiring filmmakers to get distribution. Reliant on Film Festivals where they’re film could be picked up, costs are often part and parcel of applying to a festival. If your lucky or talented enough to be included there is the hope a distributor might be charmed and pick you up.This however, is usually reserved for established filmmakers (even they struggle – read about Todd Haynes troubles in getting any of his films made including CAROL).

If not, there’s always the route of self-distribution but be warned, be prepared to dig deep into those already depleted pockets as a whole bunch of laws imposed concerning distribution will mean spending sometimes triple your film budget (or more) to be even allowed the privilege of distributing your own work. It seems the industry works hard to keep ‘others’ out. So films like DUKE OF BURGUNDY, TANGERINE and CAROL get extra big-ups for getting onto cinema screens at all.
With all this in mind, there is little left to wonder why/how creatively ‘reliable’ fare win over the more risky, interesting option, especially when there’s a homogeneous attitude towards what works and what doesn’t – especially when there’s money to be made. There lies the hard truth – film is a business and in the world of money, lies power – and there’s nothing patriarchy likes more than power.

The rumbles of dissent against the establishment is not a new thing and attempts to appease are often insincere and generally nonsensical. Retrospective diversification? Since when was that asked for, how would it work and what the hell are you on about? This piece by the Guardian’s Catherine Shoard’s sometimes misguided article about diversity on screen highlights this ignorance.
That was never the argument, it’s not a solution and what I’ve garnered from articles like that is that (the false testimony) of appeasing people calling for diversity will lose the integrity of film is unacceptable but it’s totally fine for current filmmakers to retrospectively white-wash, especially stories based on true events? Right – integrity still intact there then:

As the great Nina Simone once said: