OPINION: It’s okay that Margot Robbie didn’t get nominated, and here’s why

Netizens’ knee-jerk reaction to the 96th Oscar nominations revolved around one question: Will it always be a world for the Kens’ and never the Barbies’?

This year’s Academy Award nominations split cinephiles into two camps: one celebrating the nominations of actresses like Lily Gladstone, the first Native American actress to be nominated for Best Actress for “Killers of the Flower Moon” and the other shaken by the lack of nominations for Margot Robbie and Greta Gerwig as the titular role actress and director of “Barbie.”

The conversation on the internet was quick to dissolve from one of absolute ‘feminine rage’ towards the nominations snubbing Robbie and Gerwig, to one that lamented ‘feminine rage’ as the epitome of white feminism by neglecting to celebrate the nominations of women of color such as Lily Gladstone, America Ferrera and Sandra Hüller.

Touching on more than just the lack of intersectional feminism, the conversation also focussed on how “Barbie” itself talks about the need for equity and representativeness, especially in a world where women need to stand together rather than be pitted against one another.

This discourse has taken on so many facets in just a few short days and left me wondering: What do the Oscars stand for? Do they stand for excellence in the field of film and media, or has their purpose morphed into something else altogether? And what does that mean for those of us at home watching?

The Oscars were conceived as a way to honor outstanding achievements in all facets of motion picture production. Pushing for higher quality and deliverance in the field of motion picture, the awards encouraged those in the field to do more and to do it better than ever. It was, in fact, one of the main goals of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (lovingly known as the Academy) after being incorporated in 1927. While the first-ever Oscars in 1929 lasted a mere 15 minutes, today the award ceremony is a three-and-a-half hour coveted honor in the industry within the United States of America and internationally.

No longer are the Oscars merely about excellence in the field, but rather a deciding ticket on how movies are evaluated and which ones will be re-released. The Oscars have also become a deal-breaker for producers and financiers as well as a deciding criteria for directors, actors and writers. Nominations have been known to not just catapult those who are fresh-faced in the industry but also have been the grounds on which the audience has questioned the choices, values and abilities of actors. Earning a nomination for the Oscars has now become a crucial part of the holistic recognition of one’s work and a decisive factor in how many in the field choose to express and visualize their creativity.

To me, however, using the words “earning a nomination” is odd. The Academy was originally established to mediate labor disputes and improve the industry’s image, but has since evolved significantly. Today, it is recognized as a prestigious organization, distinguished by its coveted merit-based memberships and influential power. This also means that the nominations for most categories are done by members of the corresponding branch; film editors nominate film editors, actors nominate actors and so on and so forth. This process of nominations for the Oscars takes away the feeling of the award being earned because very little is known about the criteria for nominations. The idea of the nominations being earned feels murky when so little transparency is available to those who make up the box office statistics.

Since the nomination debacle this year, rallying calls have been made not just for the need for increased representativeness and equity on the silver screen and nominations, but also for a need to infuse that representativeness with intersectionality. No longer is the discussion focussed solely on how many women are being nominated or are present on the silver screen, rather audiences are asking if marginalized voices are being represented, nominated and celebrated.

Some argue that the mixed reactions caused by the nominations tie directly to the intentions of the Academy. Perhaps in its endeavor to keep up with an evolving world, it has, in its capacity, tried to push for representativeness and equity. However, to me that effort feels inconsequential when audiences choose to focus on the lack of nominations of white women, while completely marginalizing those who have jumped through loopholes to be honored by the Academy. I cannot help but agree with the demands for intersectionality within representativeness and equity.

As a woman who has watched Barbie umpteenth number of times, the snubbing of Robbie and Gerwig hurt — and why wouldn’t it? These women brought my childhood to life while layering it with everyday challenges I have faced since I was a young girl. However, as a woman of color, I believe celebrating the achievements of those who have historically been marginalized is equally important. That is the beauty of ‘feminine rage’: it doesn’t have to be the epitome of white feminism. My myriad of identities allows me to feel a range of emotions. Perhaps that’s a lesson the Academy can stand to benefit from.

Nandini Nair CG ’24 is from Delhi, India. She loves a good ol’ comfort show rerun, her comforters and throw blankets and reading books that take her far away from reality.