We're in for the Whitest, Male-ist Oscars Yet

Benedict Cumberbatch and Eddie Redmayne lead the several mediocre, white male-centric films destined for Oscar glory. 

After last year's Best Picture Oscar race, which including groundbreaking films such as "Gravity", "12 Years A Slave" and "Her", it's hard not to feel a sinking feeling of disappointment. 12 Years A Slave, on paper, fit into Oscar's wheelhouse, despite it's determination not to shy away from the atrocities of slavery, violence included. It was a period piece, and a biopic not to mention, it was an incredible achievement, one that Oscar couldn't look away from and still maintain it was the highest honor to receive in film.

In Gravity's case, a woman held the screen for the film's entire running time, going through her own character arc and overcoming hardship without the aid of a male character. Even "Philomela" found its way into the Best Picture race, which focused on an elderly woman grappling with being forced to give up her son by the Catholic Church. The film dealt with themes of faith, sexuality and love, and again was headlined by an 80 year old actress.

Sure, films focusing on white men overcoming hardship like "Nebraska" and "The Wolf of Wall Street" found their way into contention, but when you compare last year to this year, last year smells a little fresher. This year, you won't find films like Gravity or Philomena. Sure, there's Ava DuVernay's magnificent "Selma", but that film stands alone in a category filled with "The Theory of Everything", "The Imitation Game", "Foxcatcher", "American Sniper" and even "Boyhood". Gillian Flynn is the only woman screenwriter in contention for Best Adapted Screenplay, and of the acting contenders, Selma's David Oyelowo is the only person of color expected to receive a nomination.
What's especially frustrating, is that in recent years, the Academy has bee trying to diversify its membership and the type of films it recognizes. A few years ago, they expanded the Best Picture field from 5 to 10 nominees, and then quickly changed the voting rules, choosing the preferential ballot system. So now, anywhere from 5 to 10 films can be nominated any given year. This is how films like "The Kids Are All Right" and "Winter's Bone" found their way to nominations, nominations they would have never received in the original 5 nominee structure given their subject matter.

• "Dear White People"- 79 metecritic, 92% rotten tomatoes
• "Top Five"- 81 metacritic, 87% rottentomatoes
• "Beyond the Lights"- 73 metacritic, 81% rottentomatoes 
• "The Babadook"- 87 metacritic, 97% rottentomatoes
• "Get on Up"- 71 metacritic, 80% rottentomatoes
• "The Immigrant"- 77 metacritic, 87% rottentomatoes 

These are just few films that are much better, and much more diverse than nearly half of the expected Best Picture lineup. And the funny thing is, that these are not niche films (save for The Babadook, which despite its full fleshed character study remains a pure horror film). They play for audiences and demographics of all ages. With all of the love for biopics Oscar has been guilty of lavishing (I'm looking at you "The Iron Lady"), Chadwick Boseman's stirring, electrifying performance as James Brown in Get On Up could be winning some notices somewhere. The Immigrant is a handsomely crafted period piece about America in the 1920's, something we know Oscar loves, but it's been unfairly sidelined as barely an 'also-ran' for whatever reason, despite featuring a magnificent lead performance from Marion Cotillard, who has the film revolve around her story. Beyond the Lights features not only a breakthrough performance that Oscar should (but probably won't) bow down to from newcomer Gugu Mbatha-Raw, but is a take down of the music industry and the brutal sexualization of the women in it.

The incredible Gugu Mbatha-Raw in "Beyond the Lights" which everyone should check out. 

Perhaps it would feel less insulting if these stuffy, by the numbers films had any real depth outside of the awards-bait elements, namely the performances. I had heard some serious buzz about Eddie Redmayne's work as Stephen Hawking, a role which must have required a lot of commitment and determination. Not to take that away from him, but all that he was asked to do was look the part. The film was adapted from his ex-wife Jane's memoirs, and instead of really saying much at all about their relationship, or giving Felicity Jones (who plays Jane in the movie) much to do at all, it was a boring, by the numbers biopic, one that was done way better years before ("A Beautiful Mind").  I was moved at times, but Redmayne's work really came down to resembling Hawking; there was very little acting involved. Whereas, a film like Dear White People offers some hard-biting, insightful and oftentimes hilarious commentary on racial politics in America, with some great performances (Tessa Thompson) and even  Chris Rock's Top Five has at least something to say about what it's like being a famous black man in America.

One of the arguments against films like this receiving recognition on this scale, is that they haven't made money. That's not exactly wrong (except in the case of Top Five which is doing great business), but not right either when you look at the current slate of expected Best Picture nominees; only "Gone Girl" can boast a domestic gross of over $100 million. None of the movies pegged for Oscar glory is exactly a box office behemoth. The frontrunner (if you could even really call it that), Boyhood, has only made roughly $20 million. That's not a poor number, but nothing to rant and rave about either.

It also doesn't help, that voters aren't actually watching any of these movies, or attending screenings hosted by studios. Selma has been ignored by every guild (SAG, PGA) thus far, because of Paramount being late with sending out screener DVDs to voters. You mean to tell me voters can't find a local screening of Selma (there are dozens, ones even specifically tailored to voters, just check out the studio's website) and go watch it? This doesn't come as a shock, however, if you remember voters openly admitting to not watching 12 Years A Slave last year because of the violence it depicted (violence, I may add that was not fantasy violence or sci-fi violence, but actual historically depicted violence necessary to the film's narrative).

In the grand scheme of things, I guess it's fair to say the Oscars are not very important whatsoever. But if they're going to justify their existence, shouldn't we hold them to be more representative of the world around them? And not just the raging bias that seems to serve as their foundation? They do get it right every once in awhile, but for every 12 Years A Slave or The Hurt Locker, you have a dozen "The King's Speech" like winners. This year, I think it's going to come down to "Boyhood" and Selma, two great films (hopefully Paramount can up their campaign in phase 2 because they haven't done the film many favors campaign wise). As much of an achievement as Boyhood is, it's a story we've rewarded and seen played out so many times, one that I'm sure we're only going to hear of more down the line. Selma is not only the stronger film, but the film that fits our time now, and that is what the Best Picture award, and the Oscars as a whole for that matter, should be about. It's one thing to have a good film, but to have a film that is representative of the year it was made, with a distinct voice and innovative storytelling, that's what should be rewarded. I don't expect the Oscars to change any time soon, but I look at all the great films being ignored this year on the grounds that they're different, and I see an inherent bias. The world Oscar reflects is not the world we live in, and it needs to change. When you have an institution that has rewarded just 1 female filmmaker in the 87 years since it was created, I think that's when you say that there is a problem.