Celebrating Diversity Or Rewarding Mediocrity?

Well, it’s award show season again, and the list of award shows seems to grow exponentially every year. It’s not enough for there to be one awards show for each field - music, film, and television – there are award shows for almost every niche, including acting (Screen Actor’s Guild), independent films (Independent Spirit Awards), populist fare (People's Choice Awards) and even race (NAACP Image Awards).

Of all the award shows that trouble me the most, awards based on a person’s race would have to top the list (there’s also the ALMA awards for Latinos and the GLAAD awards for Gays and Lesbians).

I know the argument in favour of making such distinctions: since Hollywood traditionally awards and recognizes straight, white artists every year, there should be some event to recognize diversity. All well and good I suppose, but do the people they’re rewarding deserve the recognition?

According to its own website, the Image awards’ aim is to “celebrat(e) the outstanding achievements and performances of people of color in the arts as well as those individuals or groups who promote social justice.” If that’s the case, than I have to call into question some of their nominees.

Let’s take a look at some of the nominees for this year’s NAACP Image Awards, starting with Best Picture:

•  The Blind Side
•  Invictus
•  Michael Jackson's: This Is It
•  Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire
•  The Princess and the Frog

The Blind Side is a pretty racially-condescending film. It’s based on a book about a black football player, but its protagonist is a rich white woman. She literally takes this black dude home as he’s walking down the street like he’s some stray dog. I can’t see how this film meets the NAACP’s idea of promoting “social justice.” Rather, it reinforces this idea of black docility and white paternalism which is as old as film itself.

(In fairness, the Academy Awards also saw fit to nominate this monstrosity for Best Picture too, no doubt a result of their expanding the list of nominees from five to ten; the movie's box office gross was probably another factor).

The Image Awards also seem to recognize both poor and mediocre acting. Some of the nominees include Denzel Washington (The Taking Of Pelham 123), Jamie Foxx (Law Abiding Citizen), Idris Elba (Obsessed), Danny Glover (2012), and Zoe Saldana (Avatar).

I’m sorry, but most of the acting nominees could not have been chosen on any other basis but race. Jamie Foxx for Law Abiding Citizen? Who watched that movie? And Idris Elba’s performance in Obsessed wasn’t the best of anything. Is the point of the Image awards to recognize any black actor in any role? That would have to explain Zoe Saldana being picked for playing a blue alien in Avatar (ironically, she was snubbed for playing a black woman in Star Trek).

Perhaps the most unusual list of nominees is in the television category, where shows like Grey’s Anatomy, Glee, 30 Rock, and Ugly Betty appear in the Best Drama and Comedy categories, unusual because the casts of these series are largely white (or in Ugly Betty's case Latino).  But since they feature a few black faces, I suppose that qualifies them in the NAACP's skewed nominating process.

And that’s what’s so frustrating about this award show. The calibre of performance or work nominated is so… average. It doesn’t really matter if the movie or actor is good or not, it’s if their skin colour is black. Is this really how you go about rewarding positive portrayals of persons of colour?

I don’t fault the NAACP for pushing for positive portrayals of African-Americans in film and television; God knows there needs to be more of it. But there's a fine line between celebrating and promoting diversity, and simply rewarding mediocrity.