Oscar, Gender, Sexuality and Ethnicity

Another year of Oscar had come and gone. This year's Oscar managed to celebrate diversity across its major categories. "Gravity", a movie about a female astronaut stranded alone in space took out the Best Dierctor (Alfonso Cuaron) gong. "12 Year a Slave", a movie about an African American in New York being tricked and kidnapped into slavery in the South took home the Best Picture and Best Supporting Actress (Lupita Nyong'o). "Dallas Buyers Clubs", a movie about AIDS and those who tried to survive it scored the Best Actor (Matthew McConauhey) and Best Supporting Actor (Jared Leto) categories. "Blue Jasmine" successfully claimed the golden statue for Cate Blanchett in the Best Actress race.

At their acceptance speeches most of the winners made references to their movies. Jared Leto reminded us of all the people who suffered because of who they are and who they love. Lupita Nyong'o spoke of how her happiness was built on those who suffered for her in the past. Cate Blanchett stood up to movies with women as the main character can money because people do want to see them.

While Oscar is and has always been some distant dreams for me, this year I do appreciate the diversity in terms of nominations. If we look at the actresses who were nominated for the best actress category, four out of five were from women-centric movies. "Blue Jasmine" was so. "Philomena" was so. "August: Osage County" was so. And even "Gravity" was so. These female characters were no longer attachments to male leads but they were telling their own stories from their own angles. Some people think Cate Blanchett's speech was over-whining but was it so? Or are the criticisms to this speech just a reflection of some people's determination to maintain the easy common tokenism?

I can't speak for women in films because I am not one of them. However I do regularly hear my actress friends moaning over the restrictions imposed on them in terms of age and looks. Much too often female characters in movies were there as objects of interests for male leads. From time to time their importance were determined by their hotness index. More interestingly when a female character became the centre they usually have past their hot twenties and into their thirties or upward. The ladies in "The Hours" were so, Helen Mirren in "The Queen" was so, "Blue Jasmine" was so, "August: Osage County" was so, "Gravity" was so, Sandra Bullock in "The Blind Side" was so, Julia Roberts in "Erin Brockovich" was so and the list goes on. Otherwise it involves actresses taking up roles that make them beyond recognition to score, such as Hilary Swank in "Boys Don't Cry", Hally Berry in "Monster Balls" and Charlise Theron in "Monsters". It seems that strong female characters that take charge of the plot cannot come from beautiful young actresses. Maybe because the film industry is still an industry about beauty so when beautiful actresses start to age it is the time to start to make them interesting to prolong their shelf life?

This interesting approach also at times applies to sexuality. Many a time actors and actresses were lauded for playing gay, bisexual and transgender characters. They will be praised for being brave and bold for taking up something so opposite to their real life preference. They will be scrutinised at press events as to how they managed to do that. Some of them were even rewarded with a golden statue. However for me they were just doing a job. You get a paycheck so you get it done. You know the terms for the job so you get it done according to the brief. I am not saying their works were not good but I find a bit double standard when openly gay actors do not get the same degree of accolades when they were playing straight characters. Weren't they doing something completely opposite to what they preferred in real life? In that case are their works being scrutinised and appreciated at the same level as their straight counterparts? That is the question I always have when straight actors were being rewarded for playing gay characters. I do appreciate what Jared Leto said at his acceptance speech but I do wonder whether that would change the uneven landscape for actors in terms of their sexuality.

This year "12 Year a Slave" made huge waves across the award season and put racial issues back on the radar again. There is no doubt African American actors have gained quite a bit of respect in recent years. I have huge respect for that in Hollywood. Even actors of other ethnicities are gaining momentum and their playground had become a lot fairer in terms of ethnic diversity in Hollywood. Actors of different ethnic groups are no long playing token stereotype characters in Hollywood. This did not come overnight but it is coming together. The success of films such as "The Help", "The Butler" and "12 Year a Slave" have proven non-Anglo-centric movies do have markets as long as they were done properly. In Australia, the success of movies such as "Rabbit Proof Fence", "Bran Nue Dae" and "The Sapphires" also proved so. However the change of the DVD cover artwork in the States still showed that there is still a degree of conservatism when it comes to relating diversity with sales. As for me my personal experience as an Asian actor in Australia says it all. Things are changing for the better but sometimes you do wonder whether the steps are too slow considering the cultural landscape and actor profiles of Australia had changed so much in the last two decades. Why are new productions like "Wonderland" is still all white considering one of the directors is actually an Asian woman?

This year's Oscar really got me thinking about the changes in Hollywood and the continued yearning for changes in a predominantly straight white male industry in the west. Things are getting better, but is better good enough? That is the question I have in my head.