However, The Oscars can still be a source of non-political celebrity causes. And critics abound. For example, according to an article in "The Week" on line by Lili Loofbourow, if the ceremony was a test of how the industry would address the #MeToo movement, then Hollywood failed! The reason given is that, "No woman pitted against men for high profile awards won..." There is no discussion of whether or not said women SHOULD have won based on the merits of their performance---but rather, just the fact that they (the women) did not win is assumed to be evidence of unfairness.
Later in the same article, Ms. Loofbourow laments the fact that Rachael Morrison, the first woman nominated as a cinematographer (for her work in "Mudbound") did not win over her male co-nominees. As it happens, I have some insight into this particular instance of what Ms. Loofbourow would characterize as "unfairness" since my wife and I watched "Mudbound" just last night. Now, I'm tempted to say something like, "I'm no expert on cinematography..." but that's not true! I AM an expert since I watch movies a lot and can make my own judgements on their quality. And, in my view, Ms. Morrison's effort in "Mudbound" is far short of excellent. The movie features long scenes of BLACK PEOPLE being photographed IN THE DARK with, at best, a candle, flashlight or small cooking fire providing the only light source. In those scenes where white people are present, their faces are most often smeared with mud. YOU CAN'T SEE ANYTHING CLEARLY! This film is NOT a cinematic triumph----I found myself wishing I had a pair of night vision goggles.
The funny part of this situation is that the snubbing of female nominees was only a sub-text of the Loofbourow piece. The main point being made was to laud Frances McDormand's speech calling on Hollywood leading women and men to insert "inclusion riders" into their contract negotiations. The inclusion rider, according to McDormand, allows the star to "ask for and/or demand at least 50% diversity in, not only casting, but also crew. By the way, The French have a word for this---to wit: EXTORTION.
The 50% rule would seem to work out nicely when the job applicant pool is binary, i.e. Black-White or Male-Female, but what happens when you add in Asians, Native Americans and the other individually adopted identities (LGBTQ---and "unsure/questioning" , etc.) of which Hollywood is so fond? How many ways can you split that hair? For example, "No, I'm afraid you can't work on this movie, sir or madam (as the case may be),---we need a trans-gender Asian from a broken home to fill that Key Grip slot."
Moreover, another wrinkle in the numbers game to insure proper representation of diversity is the concept of the "equity rider" in contracts--- stipulating that the gender and racial makeup of tertiary speaking characters must match the ACTUAL demographics of the film's setting, rather than favor white men. I'm not sure how they plan to establish the "Actual Demographics" for a movie set in say, the pre-Columbian period. And, by the way, had this rule been in place on Broadway and applied to main as well as "tertiary" characters, it might have been a problem for "Hamilton" with its Black George Washington. But, no matter, that's not Hollywood---it's BROADWAY--The Great (you should pardon the expression) White Way.