Jada Pinkett-Smith and Spike Lee have both publicly come out to protest the 88th Annual Academy Awards taking place on February 26th. For the second year in a row, nominations for both lead and supporting actors were all white. The last time there was a back-to-back acting nominee whitewash, Clinton was president (1997 and 1998).
For some out there, this may not seem like such a big deal. I mean, let’s take a look at what’s going on in the world: Flint, Michigan is in the midst of figuring out contaminated public water that could have poisoned their communities just because of carelessness of those in power; the Middle East continues to figure out power dynamics based on religious beliefs; Europe is seeing a huge influx of refugees coming from Turkey and Syria; many communities are grappling with crippling poverty, but it seems that white people in the U.S. are getting upset about an award ceremony (we’re pretty pissed about Donald Trump, too, but that’s a story for another time).
The lack of diversity in the Academy Awards nominations may not be a life and death situation, but for many, the lack of representation in the “mainstream,” as Pinkett-Smith puts it, hurts us all.
Movies like “Straight Outta Compton,” “Concussion,” “Creed,” “Chi-Raq,” “Hateful Eight,” and “Beast of No Nation” received no recognition from the Academy for the work actors and directors of color have put out.
Who do we have to blame for this lack of diversity in nominations?
Many argue that members of the Academy of Motion Pictures simply vote on movies that are made for mass consumption. Movies most be made in order to vote. The blame is shifted to the movie makers and those hiring actors.
Others have reasoned that movies a­­­lready have diverse cast members, even diverse directors, including both men and women of color, involved. Movie makers blame the Academy and their antiquated members, with 93 percent of them white and 73 percent male. The Academy does not reflect the population in the U.S. that goes out to watch movies.
Should we follow suit with Pinkett-Smith and Lee to boycott the Oscars?
If we really wanted to boycott something, we should be boycotting movies year-round.
Before you throw down whatever you’re holding, let me explain.
We are constantly bombarded with messages from the TV, magazines on the shelves, and especially movies that we watch. These messages are not only promoting products to sell, but are trying to sell the idea of moods, attitudes, and a sense of what should be important to us.
It seems that all movies do is reinforce tired stereotypes of gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and race. This gets old after a while. Through our everyday interactions, we come to find that movies and the narratives they choose to portray are nothing like the real lives we take part in every day.
In simpler words, movies aren’t real. But even my six-year-old cousin knows that.
Here are a few theories based in sociology that speak upon media in general, but can relate to films as well:

1. The limited-effects theory argues that because people generally choose what to watch based on what they already believe, that the media exerts a small influence.
2. The class‐dominant theory says that the media reflects and projects the view of a minority elite, which happens to control said media. Those people who own and control the corporations that produce the media outlets make up this elite class.
3. The culturalist theory combines the previous two theories, while claiming that people interact with media to create their own meanings out of the images and messages they receive. This theory sees audiences as playing an active, rather than passive, role in relation to mass media.

The media exerts a powerful force upon us, especially through film. Movies show us examples of how to act, how to dress, what is “normal,” what is bad, and more importantly, *who* is bad.
As noted by a September 2013 interviewee of Humans of New York, “I try not to watch movies and television… They really harm your perspective.”