Since 1929, The Academy Awards have been primarily white. The first African-American actor to win in a competitive category was Hattie McDaniel in 1940 but only for a supporting role. An African-American director has yet to win an Oscar for Best Director. The first nomination of an African-American director was in 1991 – 62 years after the first Academy Awards. 

This lack of diversity has not gone unnoticed by movie-goers of the 21st century. Starting in 2015, the #OscarsSoWhite hashtag has trended during awards season. This hashtag does not only apply to the lack of nominations for people of color but also the lack of women and members of the LGBTQ+ community. 

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences recently or has now established new standards of diversity and inclusion for the Best Picture category. While this does not change for movies nominated for the next three years, they will make the standards mandatory for all films nominated for best picture in 2024.

The new standards lay out four categories of diversity, of which two must be fulfilled to be considered for the Best Picture nomination. The four categories: On-Screen Representation, Themes and Narratives; Creative Leadership and Project Team; Industry Access and Opportunities; and Audience Development. 

The first category addresses the lack of non-white members of the cast and a lack of focus on marginalized narratives. There are three stipulations for this category, only one of them must be completed for the fulfillment of this category. The three stipulations are:

– There must be at least one lead actor from a marginalized or under-represented ethnic group.

– A minimum of 30 percent of minor roles are filled by women, members of the LGBTQ+ community, marginalized ethnicities or persons with cognitive or physical disabilities.

– The main theme of the movie must center around one of the aforementioned under-represented groups.

The second category tackles the lack of diversity in technical positions in the film industry. The three stipulations for this category are:

– A minimum of two of the following positions must be filled by a member of an under-represented group: Casting Director, Cinematographer, Composer, Costume Designer, Director, Editor, Hairstylist, Makeup Artist, Producer, Production Designer, Set Decorator, Sound, VFX Supervisor, Writer

– At least one of six members of the technical team, excluding Production Assistants, must be from an under-represented group of people.

– At least 30 percent of the film’s crew must be members of an under-represented group of people.

The third category focuses on the lack of opportunity for those in under-represented minorities in Hollywood. The two stipulations are: 

– The distribution or financing group of a film must have paid apprenticeships or internships for members of under-represented minorities.

– The film or financing company must offer training for under-skilled workers that belong to an under-represented group of people.

The final category tries to fight the lack of diversity in marketing and distribution. This category only has one stipulation: 

– The studio or film company must have multiple in-house executives on their marketing and distribution teams from under-represented minorities. 

These new rules for consideration were released by the Academy Sept. 8 and divided much of the film-loving community. While many people see these new standards as a step toward equality in the representation of minorities on and behind the camera others saw this as a publicity stunt. By making it so that the films must only complete two stipulations from different categories out of the nine that were put forward many believe that it will be too easy for films to create temporary programs or positions to fill their quota of diversity before the release the film to the public. 

I see these prerequisites for nomination as a partial step in the right direction for the future of cinema. If a film fulfills the bare minimum of these requirements for consideration when making the film nothing will have changed for a majority of the movies we see today. The stories will still be from the perspectives of the majority while the marginalized voices are relegated to the same indie films that they have been for decades. 

The film industry has to finally step out of the time that it has chosen to stay in since Hattie McDaniel won her Oscar in 1940. But that step can’t just be made by those who give out the awards, it has to be made by the film studios, the directors, the casting companies, the screenwriters – but most importantly – it has to be made by us. We have to support the movies that are about and are told by marginalized people. It is only then that the films will change to truly represent the diversity in America that we see every day.

For the first time ever, an international film won the Oscar for best picture when the South Korean film “Parasite” took home the award at the 92nd Academy Awards. Bong Joon-Ho also took home Oscars for best director and best original screenplay. There was some criticism of the fact that “Parasite” won best picture in addition to its win for best international feature film earlier in the night, but overall, movie fans were thrilled to see “Parasite” clean up at the Oscars this year.

This praise and excitement is well-deserved, as “Parasite” is, in my opinion, one of the best films to come out in the last 10 years. Often a film will either have an interesting message or will tell a story in a unique and beautiful way. Many films fail to do both, but director Bong Joon-Ho and cinematographer Kyung-pyo Hong have crafted a visual and storytelling masterpiece – a rare gem among the recent influx of sequels and remakes that typically fill the movie theaters these days. 

Starting with the cinematography, the film is breathtaking. Bong-Joon Ho uses lighting in really intriguing ways. Not only does the flickering light in the Park home create an eerie atmosphere at times, it is also crucial to the story, as we find out later in the film. The red-tinted light in the flooding scene is also quite stunning. There are also several shots of people looking out windows, which not only creates for some cool reflection shots but also creates a feeling of separation between the rich Park family and the poor Kim family, a contrast which is at the heart of the film.

The framing is masterful, especially with the staircases at both the Park’s house and the Kim’s house. The shot of Park Yeon-kyo coming up the stairs with the light directly above her head and her face in the center of the frame is the most iconic example of this. It is shots like this that really pull the audience into the film and will cause this film to be considered a classic by later generations.

It is hard to talk about this film without praising the acting. The entire cast does a fantastic job, and it shocked me that not a single actor was nominated for an acting award at the Oscars. Kang-Ho Song as Kim Ki-taek was the standout for me, and his long take monologue at the shelter was a hypnotizing moment in the film. Overall, the entire cast truly brings their characters to life.

This film is full of twists, turns and some intense moments, but a commentary on the differences between social classes lies in the center of it all. This is an important issue throughout the globe today. This is why I encourage everybody to see this film – it has something to say to people of all languages and backgrounds.

My favorite part of this movie is that neither side of the economic divide is inherently good or bad, and the movie does not try to force us to hate one side or the other. Both the Park family and the Kim family do some really bad things. The Park family is rude and entitled, and the Kim family lies, assaults and kills in order to move up the social and economic ladder. But the way in which the story plays out shows that it is not inherent evil in the characters that causes these actions, it is the situations that play out throughout the story that lead the characters to commit more drastic acts. 

Similar to “Joker,” “Parasite” tells a story about people who are easy to sympathize with despite their evil actions. The fact that we sympathize with the Kim family tells us that deep down, we know that we each have our own breaking point. We are not perfect, and sometimes it is important that we are reminded of that. 

Overall, I cannot recommend this film enough. To me this is a once-in-a-generation film that, despite the language barrier, can connect with absolutely anybody. Whether you are looking for a beautiful film, a film with a powerful message and great acting, or just a good time, “Parasite” is for you. 

The 2019 Academy Awards was the first time that the awards show didn’t have a host. Kevin Hart was originally slated to be the host but stepped down due to some controversial tweets and jokes made back in 2010. This is one of many examples of celebrities and athletes whose past tweets have made a resurgence in recent years. In this article, I will break down two of these incidents and explain how they often do more harm than good.

As mentioned above, Kevin Hart stepped down from hosting the Oscars due to some nearly decade-old tweets and stand-up jokes resurfacing. The tweets and jokes Hart dropped out of the Oscars because of, some of which can be found here, were criticized for being homophobic. There’s not much I can say that hasn’t already been said.

Although I don’t know Hart’s intentions or beliefs when he made these jokes, and although I don’t think he was serious, I can see how they would be offensive to people. However, I don’t think he should have been shamed into stepping down from hosting the Oscars, for two reasons.

Comedians have to walk an unbelievably thin line when it comes to their jokes. Don’t go close enough to the line, people find your jokes boring and you don’t make any money. Go too far past the line, and you are racist, sexist or almost any other word ending in -ist you can think of.

Do I think Hart actually meant a lot of the stuff he said in his comedy sketches? Nobody can really know what was in his heart or his mind at the time, but I find it hard to believe that he would actually smash a dollhouse over his son’s head if he found him playing with one. Did these jokes cross the line? Definitely. But comedians get paid big bucks to push the line, so we shouldn’t be surprised when it gets crossed every once and awhile.

Second, Hart is not the same person he was back in 2010. He even talked about this in an Instagram video he made, saying “I’m almost 40 years old. If you don’t believe that people change, grow, evolve as they get older, I don’t know what to tell you.”

I have to agree with him. People can change a lot in eight years and I don’t find it productive or helpful to anyone to continue to attack people over things they said in the past when they have apologized for it and grown as a result.

Shortly after these old tweets and jokes resurfaced, Hart was told by the Academy to either apologize or they would find a new host. Hart declined to apologize, mentioning that he had apologized before and didn’t want to continue bringing up the past when he had already moved on and was in a different place mentally. However, he stepped down from hosting Dec. 7 and tweeted an apology, saying “I’m sorry that I hurt people.”

Hart received some criticism for waiting so long to apologize, but I found the timing to be fine. If he had apologized when the Academy told him to in order to remain as host, it would have come across as disingenuous. This apology was met with mixed reviews. Billy Eichner tweeted at Hart, saying he appreciated and accepted his apology, and comedian Ricky Gervais tweeted “the only time I’m offended by a comedian is when they apologize.”

Overall, while I can see how Hart’s tweets and jokes were and are offensive, we shouldn’t continue to punish him when he has clearly grown as a person.

Similar to Hart, James Gunn also had some past tweets come back to haunt him recently. Gunn, who is most well known for directing the Guardians of the Galaxy movies, was fired by Marvel last summer and will no longer direct Guardians of the Galaxy: Volume 3. The controversial tweets were made from 2009-2012 and are mostly centered around young children, leading some to believe that Gunn is a pedophile. However, there are two important things to understand about these tweets.

First, it is important to understand how Twitter worked back in 2009. Two of the tweets often used as “evidence” to claim that Gunn is a pedophile start with “RT.” The RT stands for retweet, and in 2009, when someone retweeted a tweet, their tweet would start with “RT,” followed by the username of the person being retweeted and then a quote, not a direct copy, of the original tweet.

Since retweeting wasn’t a direct copy of the original tweet, it allowed users to write whatever they wanted and make it seem like a retweet. This system was often exploited to make other people look bad or to play a prank on other Twitter users, which is what Gunn was doing with these two tweets.

A few of his tweets also ended with hashtags like #sadchildrensbooks or #unromanticmovies. These were popular hashtags at the time, and Gunn was following that trend with his “unique” sense of humor. James Gunn is not admitting to committing any sexual acts with kids in these tweets. To claim that Gunn is a pedophile because of these tweets is to be ignorant of both how Twitter worked and popular trends on Twitter at the time.

Second, it is clear to anyone with anyone with a basic understanding of the concept of a joke that these tweets from Gunn are meant to be jokes. Let’s look at his shower tweet as an example. It is very clearly a joke about the water pressure in hotel showers – as someone who has stayed in many hotels I can confirm that the water pressure in the showers is usually lackluster at best. While it personally makes me a bit uncomfortable, it is very clearly a joke that falls under the “funny because it’s true” category of jokes, for lack of a better term.

I want to make it clear that I personally find these tweets to range from uncomfortable to disgusting, as many people probably would. I am not part of the weird sect of Twitter that those jokes were meant for.

However, personal opinion about whether a joke is funny or not shouldn’t lead to someone getting fired. If celebrities were fired from their job every time that they said something that somebody finds offensive, we would have no comedians, directors, actors, artists or musicians. We would have no creativity or free speech, and that sounds like a terrifying world to me.

On the one hand, I can see why Disney would want to separate themselves from these comments. My problem with that, however, is that I find it hard to believe that Disney didn’t know about this until it became a public scandal. Before working for Marvel, which is owned by Disney, Gunn was known for weird, edgy humor similar to these tweets. It seems as though Disney didn’t care about these tweets until the public found out and started criticizing both Gunn and Disney.

People shouldn’t be fired for making jokes that some people would find to be unfunny or uncomfortable. If there was any real evidence of Gunn being a pedophile, then he definitely shouldn’t have a job directing movies for Disney. These tweets that are often taken out of context are not evidence of that, however, and I believe he was unfairly fired. He was recently hired to direct the upcoming Suicide Squad sequel, so I’m glad to see that his career wasn’t ruined for some uncomfortable tweets he made years ago.

There are countless other examples of this kind of controversy. My biggest problem with the idea of scavenging through people’s old tweets or jokes and using that to hurt or even ruin their career is that it is a very pessimistic view of humanity. This act requires you to assume that whoever made these jokes or tweets hasn’t changed since then, despite evidence that they have.

I think the act is also used as a tool by people to feel better about themselves. Instead of going out into the world to help people in need, those that dig up old tweets decide to attack people for things they said 10 years ago while claiming to be fighting for social justice for oppressed groups. In reality, their goals are much more selfish.

We, as a society, shouldn’t be focused on bringing people down for mean or weird jokes they made in the past, even after they have changed as a person. We should focus more on bringing the people around us up. We should criticize hurtful or hateful words when they are said but shouldn’t continue to bring them up as a way to hurt that person’s career when they have changed their ways.

In recent years, the reputation of the Oscars has steeply fallen in the public eye, both in its popularity and respectability. Various scandals, lack of diversity and representation in its nominees, as well as frustrations with the very limited scope of the Oscars’ selection process have led to astaggering drop in viewership.

Regardless of the awards show, 2018 was a great year for filmmaking. These eight movies deserve a few hours of your time, despite any nomination(s) or lack thereof.

1. “Roma” (Dir. Alfonso Cuarón)

Before I get to the films that didn’t get much Oscars attention, I must give mention to “Roma,” the cinematic black and white masterpiece from the director of “Gravity.” The film is a fictional recollection of its director, Cuarón’s, childhood and the nanny that cared for him in 1970s Mexico City. It’s a stunning balance of careful intimacy and grand artistry and provides a unique and subversive perspective on social issues like gender, race and class. Every shot is so carefully constructed, from intimate scenes in the family kitchen to the massively violent rebellion in the middle of the film. “Roma” is available to stream on Netflix.

2. “First Reformed” (Dir. Paul Schrader)

This massively under-hyped film is not for the faint of heart or spirit. The power of this film lies in the contrast between its stern, plain exterior and color palette with the raw, emotional unraveling of its primary character – a cancer-ridden Reverend played by Ethan Hawke, who is in the midst of a traumatic and spiritual crisis. It also contains a truly hallucinogenic moment of intimacy that is one of the most fantastic scenes of 2018 between the Reverend and Mary (Amanda Seyfried), a parishioner who seeks help for her depressed, radical environmentalist husband.

3. “The Favourite” (Dir. Yorgos Lanthimos)

Viewers should not expect a typical 18th century period piece from the director of films like “The Lobster” and “Killing of a Sacred Deer.” It is an almost entirely fictional power struggle between two ambitious women that leaves Queen Anne caught in the middle of it all. Despite its sinister moments, the characters’ spontaneity, absurdity and the setting of sheer decadence not unlike the 2006 film “Marie Antoinette” make this film an absolute pleasure to watch.

4. “You Were Never Really Here” (Dir. Lynne Ramsay)

In what is perhaps the best Joaquin Phoenix performance so far, this film manages to leave an aggressively violent imprint on the viewer’s mind, despite only being marginally graphic. It focuses on a PTSD riddled war veteran turned hitman who must rescue a child form a prostitution ring. The cinematography and editing of this film leave a lasting impact that is so unique, it is almost indescribable. The result is a film that expands the notion of a deeply psychological character study.

5. “Cold War” (Dir. Pawel Pawlikowski)

As if one stunning black and white film within one year wasn’t enough, 2018 also gave us “Cold War,” a film so precise in its historical stage setting one almost wonders if they are being transported into 1950s Poland. Despite the unforgiving reality of history, the film immerses the audience in an incredibly intimate romance with strong performances coming from both actor and actress. It’s the kind of on-screen chemistry that has your heart thumping along with the characters. Very few words are spoken within the film, which makes it even more transcendent of language and culture while still maintaining fierce originality in the story it tells about the realities of living within the era.

6. “Annihilation” (Dir. Alex Garland)

You might have blinked and missed the release of this Netflix Original earlier this year from the director and cinematographer of “Ex Machina.” The film delivers fantastic performances from Natalie Portman and Oscar Isaac and offers a unique dystopian premise that somehow succeeds on all fronts, despite the possibility of falling into silly alien thriller tropes. The ending contains my favorite cinematic moment of 2018. I will not spoil it entirely, but I will say it involves an eerie alien dance. If you hate ambiguous endings and sci-fi, this is one to avoid. However, if you like a movie that you’ll be dissecting for days to come, “Annihilation” is for you.

7. “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” (Dirs. Bob Persichetti, Peter Ramsey, Rodney Rothman)

I think almost anyone would enjoy this movie. Apart from the story of Miles Morales being a welcome and original addition to the Spider-Man cinematic universe, this film is a visual and aesthetic delight. The film synthesizes comic book panels and contemporary animation in such a way that must be seen to be believed. It also carries a valuable message and adds a genuinely unique and diverse hero to the heavily caucasian-dominated Marvel universe.

8. “Sorry to Bother You” (Dir. Boots Riley)

Perhaps the title of most underrated film of 2018 should go to “Sorry to Bother You,” an in-your-face satire that offers forceful social critiques of capitalism, race, gender and class through rebellious and theatrical subversion of many on-screen tropes. It grasps the audience’s attention and confronts them with injustices, but avoids being a purely heavy-handed dose of political commentary. It’s staggeringly entertaining, funny, rhythmic and offers almost psychedelic styling and cinematography. There’s so much to unpack in this film, it’s better to just watch it for yourself.

Photo courtesy of Netflix