Who's to Blame?

Thought about this for several days before deciding to write.

I have been reflecting on the (delectable and talented)  Jada Pinkett Smith and her recent criticism of and decision to boycott this year's Academy Awards presentations. It seemed to me that she was mostly perturbed that the Academy's voters/selection committee had failed for the second year in a row to recognize  a Black actor with a nomination in one of the four "major" categories, said categories being supporting and lead actors, male and female.

        I think there is an issue here, I just don't agree with Mrs. Smith on the location of the "problem", if we call it that. My first thought was to reflect on whether the fact that her husband, the equally talented and beautiful Will Smith, was overlooked for "Concussion" factored in to her displeasure. I feel that it probably has to some extent.  Regarding her allegations of favoritism among those on the nominating committee, it would seem that she had no such reservations when  Will was nominated for "Happyness" and "Ali."  The committee was essentially the same racially and gender wise. Of course he didn't win for either role. So who won? Well, the nonpareil Denzel Washington won for "Training Day" and Forrest Whittaker won for "Last King of Scotland."  Last I looked, both were Black actors.   

        So? So if "Training Day" had been made 10 years earlier and Al Pacino cast in the lead, he'd have won. Why? because the vehicle was a strong role and a great opportunity for a great actor (Pacino or Washington) to show their craft.  When the current leading producer of Black oriented films alternates between playing a grandma in Drag and writing/directing  his own stuff, there may well be a shortage of Oscar worthy material. This is the same reason Adam Sandler is constantly rebuffed.  Prolific and "good" are not synonyms, Mr. Perry. 

        Selection committees must choose from what they are presented with in any given year, and when that year provides a classic like "The Help" (or Pulp Fiction, Million Dollar Baby, or  Dreamgirls) there will be nominations to reflect that. The people Mrs. Smith should be angry with if any, are casting directors who overlook talented actors in favor of "safe" choices.  Additionally, it is obvious that the film industry is a "butts in the seats" business, and that affects casting decisions. Of course, it is also true that when films are seen by viewers as either "Black" or "White" films, the audience is fractioned before release. A secondary note is that sometimes movies become "niche movies."  "Concussion" is such a movie, not because of race but because of subject matter.  A prime example of a casting decision which overlooked race in favor of talent would be the casting of the divine Audra MacDonald  in "Rikki and the Flash."  The film isn't Oscar material, but my point is that the casting was race neutral, dealing with story rather than making race the story as happens sometimes. Meanwhile will there be complaints when "Ride Along II" is snubbed?    

        There are a ton of great Black actors doing television right now, some of whose absence from the big screen are surprising. Shemar Moore, Lawrence Fishburne, and Anthony Anderson, immediately comes to mind, and Viola Davis is too long absent from movies as well. Chicago Fire, PD and Med are pools of talent none of whose cast members  I have seen in movies. So in conclusion, boycott if you will, but your anger is misplaced. Casting directors, writers and producers need to realize that a good story is a good story and great roles need not  necessarily be defined by race.  Don't blame the selection committee for the lack of choice offered for consideration.