The James Bulger film has shown the Oscars up for what they are – an outdated, unethical institution that needs to be abolished

The Academy Awards are universally considered the most important night in the film calendar. Dreams are made, hopes are dashed and fake conciliatory smiles and gorgeous gowns make up its unofficial dress code.

Yet what should be a night of jubilation never manages to go a year without entering murky ethical waters. This year, as the big night approaches, a controversy surrounding Detainment – a film written and directed by Irish filmmaker Vincent Lambe that reconstructs the police interrogation of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, the 10-year-olds convicted of brutally murdering Liverpudlian toddler Jamie Bulger in 1993 – is gathering pace.

Bulger’s mother, Denise Fergus, objected to the film before it was made. After it was included on the Oscar shortlist in December 2018, she launched an online petition, which currently has 98,000 signatures, calling for the film to be dropped from the nomination process. Upon hearing the news that the film had become one of the final five nominees, Fergus posted a message on social media saying she was “disgusted and upset” by the film’s nomination.

Of course films do not necessarily require permission from a deceased person’s relatives to be made. It is, in my view, ethical to explore the lives of people like Margaret Thatcher or Princess Diana on screen – even if their relatives do not give their blessing. These people are public figures who have left an indelible mark on modern history and knowingly put themselves in the face of public scrutiny. But Bulger, a two year-old murder victim, is not a public figure. The only reason we know his name is because of his disturbing and violent death. While his family recently participated in several documentaries to mark the 20-year anniversary of his murder, there is, to my mind, certainly no justification for a fictional film exploring his death without their permission.

The fact that such a film exists and is now nominated for the most prestigious award in the world is an example of a problem that runs to the core of the Academy Awards: there are no official ethical checks on nominees or their creative output.

Every year there is at least one indefensible ethical issue with the Academy Awards. Like clockwork, straight white actors dominate the acting awards and men dominate the awards for Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Picture and Best Cinematography. This year, there are no female directorial nominees and last year there was only one: Greta Gerwig. The last female director to be nominated before Gerwig was Kathryn Bigelow in 2010, meaning that, including 2019’s all-male nominees, just two out of the last 45 nominees have been women – that’s only 4 per cent.

During this time, male filmmaker Mel Gibson, who was arrested for driving under the influence and recorded shouting abusive, antisemitic remarks, has been nominated for numerous Oscars. As has Woody Allen, who has been widely condemned for accusations that he sexually abused his daughter Dylan Farrow – which he denies. In 2017, actor Brie Larson refused to clap after presenting the Best Actor Oscar to Casey Affleck, who has faced sexual harassment lawsuits.

These nominations come over a decade after Roman Polanski, who was convicted of unlawful sex with a 13 year-old girl, won the 2002 Academy Award for Best Director, despite not being able to attend the ceremony because he would have been arrested had he returned to the United States. Given that so little seems to have changed, despite the MeToo and Time’s Up movements, it surely won’t be long before a Harvey Weinstein is celebrated on the Oscar stage once more.

Detainment is, of course, not the only controversy to befall this year’s ceremony. Former host Kevin Hart pulled out of the gig after a controversy surrounding homophobic tweets which resurfaced online. Bizarrely, for the first time ever, this year’s ceremony will be “hostless”, because no host is seemingly easier than finding an unproblematic replacement.

Then there is the furore surrounding Freddie Mercury biopic Bohemian Rhapsody. A report by The Atlantic detailed numerous accusations of alleged sexual abuse against the film’s director Bryan Singer. Singer, who denies sexual activity with underage boys and has been trailed by sexual misconduct allegations for decades, previously thanked the Golden Globes via Instagram when the film won Best Picture earlier this month. Following the report, the film was removed as a nominee from LGBTQ+ organisation GLAAD’s Media Awards, but there is no sign that the Academy will follow suit.

As we prepare for another Oscars ceremony, I find myself wondering whether next year we should cancel the whole thing. This year I’m sure we’ll see more “iconic” speeches by women, in an attempt to distract from fact that they’ve barely won anything outside of the gendered categories, while more awards are handed to men accused of unspeakable, unethical behaviour.

The Oscars is, on a larger scale, what happens when a teenager breaks every rule under the sun – sneaking out to parties, stealing and swearing at their parents – but is still rewarded with an all expenses paid birthday party every year. Except these people, mostly men, who are accused of abusing their power are far from teenagers. Their behaviour, ranging from the unethical to the allegedly criminal, is much worse than any adolescent antics.

It may be intended to celebrate talent, which there is of course an abundance of, but in practice the Oscars merely reward the inequalities within the film industry which lead to less powerful people facing systemic exploitation, abuse and erasure. With such resistance to the cultural shifts occurring outside the film industry, who are the Oscars really for? The struggle to answer this question guides me to the conclusion that the Oscars should be given a much-needed time out until the film industry’s decision makers become worthy of such a prestigious stage.