THIS year’s nominations for the 90th Academy Awards were announced last week by Andy Serkis and Tiffany Haddish. I thought it was particularly interesting that Serkis and Haddish were the ones chosen to announce nominations, especially given the attention both actors have attracted in the past for their unusual performances that many thought and hoped would have earned them nominations from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

Serkis’ name came up for awards consideration a few years ago for his motion-capture performance of Caesar, the ape, in the Planet of the Apes sequels. Nominating a motion-capture performance (one that requires extensive use of visual effects, where the actor’s real face is never even seen) is an unusual and revolutionary prospect but, eventually, nothing came of it as Serkis was not nominated for the Oscar.

Then there’s Haddish. Unlike in Serkis’ case, Haddish did not use any motion capture or visual effects to portray her character, Dina, in the comedy, Girls Trip. She played a woman who goes on an adventure in New Orleans with her friends. So why then was she not nominated for the Best Supporting Actress Oscar, despite her stellar performance? The reasons might be varied and numerous, but the ones I will be really honing in on are the ones that keep popping up, not in news articles and film blogs, but rather in comments on social media and in casual conversation.

As a black woman, Tiffany Haddish would have had a hard time getting nominated anyway. However, the lack of diversity in nominations that led to the creation of #OscarsSoWhite, when compounded with the fact that Haddish was a comedic actress starring in a female-driven comedy, quickly made it clear that it was going to be difficult for her to break through into the Academy Awards circuit.

Of course, she did deserve to be nominated and the things that held her back were probably the Academy’s historical and slowly-changing approach, to comedies and people of colour. Such reasons, in my mind, still make more sense than the plethora of comments that I see being pandered around on social media. Statements which claim that Haddish’s performance in Girls Trip was “crass” and “undeserving of a nomination” or that the performance had “no class” or was “loud and over the top.”

Yes, the character was loud and over the top, and yes, the character was crass sometimes, but the performance was definitely deserving of the nomination, anyway, and perhaps because of her ability to bring out these very elements that defined her character. It is incorrect to suggest that a performance that does not obey the unwritten rules of propriety, or a performance that does not pander to the norms of prudishness or social expectations of what acting is or should be, should be unworthy of praise or recognition in the form of awards. A good performance is a good performance, and perhaps that is where the problem lies. Perhaps, people do not know what a “good performance” entails.

Some might argue that a good performance in a film or a piece of theatre is one that best mirrors reality; the performance that the actor or actress is able to bring to life in such a way that it accurately presents the character to be as real as possible. But is that really the case? I definitely do not think that that is only what can construe a good performance.

I think good acting performances in film and theatre are entirely dependent on context and culture. Here is an example that can help to explain what I mean: in a theatrical performance that relies heavily on the ritualistic, let us say it is an Indian play that employs the use of Kathakali dance, would the dancers who wear heavily exaggerated masks, otherworldly costumes, and move in highly unusual ways (in other words, performing in ways that are opposed to merely, and only, representing reality) be accused of giving a performance that is not good?

The answer to this is no, because if we take context and culture into consideration (Indian theatre and Indian cultural norms), then such a performance might actually be one that is quite excellent. Similarly, if an actor or actress is performing in a film or play that utilises strategies found in In-Yer-Face theatre (where the outlandishly, sometimes unrealistically vulgar and violent can be presented) that is being watched by a prudish audience, would the actor or actress who bleeds copiously for 15 minutes or who engages in some sort of exaggerated act of sadomasochism be accused of giving an unrealistic, bad performance simply because the audience watching the piece do not adhere to the same rules that emerge from the context and culture within which the actor or actress is working? Clearly, it should not be so.

My point is simply that Tiffany Haddish’s performance was a lot of things that certain sections of the traditional Western audience have long managed to not associate with good, award-worthy performances. She acted within the theatrical-culture of an over the top, slapstick performance (a performance type, though derided by some now, with its own long history) and she functioned well within the context of what she was asked to do: deliver an emotional and hilarious character, which she succeeded extremely well at.

Perhaps, the culture and context of the performance are slightly removed from the voters at the Academy – but this in no way negates the fact that Haddish’s performance was excellent and more than worthy of the kind of recognition an Oscar nomination brings.