Oscar PM (post-mortem) Dawn: Thoughts on the 95th Academy Awards and the Oscars as Societal Mirror
Oscar, Oscar, Oscar. I’m so proud of you. This was a relatively fleet, zippy evening in which the underserved were for the most part, recognized, and where the cringiest moments weren’t the worst we’ve seen.
My original plan was to tap out some thought-form about the relevance or the reverse of the Academy Awards. This is number 95, and for much of the presentation’s existence during my lifetime, it’s been a night of overlong, self-importance, bloviation, embarrassment, and/or the occasional delightful or moving moment. That last is extremely rare.
I’m going to fold that into a look at last night’s broadcast and probably not arrive at any earth-shattering conclusions. In fact, I may end up subverting my original tendency, which is to pretty much drag on the Academy for any number of reasons as well as suggest that maybe it’s time to downgrade the attention and airtime given them.
One of the main reasons I grow wearier of the Oscars with each turning of the year is that, jeez, they are a slog. Hours upon hours of self-congratulatory back patting, very often lame attempts at amusement, frequent poorly mixed musical numbers, and as much as I love movies, often ridiculous winners. Most of all, though, awards shows in general tend to be creaky artifacts of a time not all that long ago and stretching back to the ancients of praising someone as “The Best” of whatever it was the contest was regarding.
Sports and science provide easier metrics and references. Finding a cure for life-threatening diseases does deserve recognition (and funding); it’s easier to quantify who has hit the most home runs or scored the most goals (data!). But in the arts, visual or performing and cinema is both, how do you arrive at “The Best”?
The issues with this sort of thing are myriad. Qualitative evaluation is sooooo subjective although you could argue that there’s a huge difference between DeNiro playing Jake Lamotta and Tommy Wiseau in “The Room”. But it grows more difficult when you have competition between performances such as we saw in 2022 and were celebrated last night. How do you decide between Yeoh and Blanchett or Farrell, Fraser, and Butler?
There was an anonymous voter interviewed recently(1) who admitted she voted for some people because it was their time; i.e., the candidate just deserved an award after years of other stellar performances. Fine. That’s reasonable, but even Jack Nicholson called out the Academy for his win for “As Good As It Gets” (a fine Nicholson performance but against Matt Damon for “Good Will Hunting” or Robert Duvall in “The Apostle”? Peter Fonda in “Ulee’s Gold”? Hoffman in “Wag the Dog”? Sure, some of these are close calls, but Nicholson pointed out this was very much a sentimental win); perhaps the most obvious example of a sentimental win is Elizabeth Taylor for “Butterfield 8” (a film she detested but one I think is better than she might realize).
That line of discussion leads us into the Valley of Opinion and essentially, the voting winds up being an interesting social phenomenon of how opinions are validated irrespective of the merit of the performances lauded.
In this way, the Academy mirrors very much how we vote in politics. Irrespective of issues or who might be the best person for finding solutions to important problems, “leaders” are elected based on who they pandered to and what emotional buttons were pushed. The Academy’s decisions pale in comparison in terms of real world relevance or importance; except in one important way.
Movies and the performing arts share with sports a prime place of importance in most societies. They can be edifying, sure. They can enrich, enlarge, and expand upon the human condition. However, they can also serve to distract from larger issues (like voting and taking seriously existential threats to our species’ survival.) The counter argument is that we need something to take our minds off the grimness of those threats; we need catharsis, we need escape for a few moments. However, I would counter counter that argument with; don’t we have enough of those moments? Don’t we ignore our teetering on the precipice of collapse on a daily, if not momentary basis? In other words, why don’t we tend to the issues at hand collectively? Why don’t we care more individually?
I know why. We - the individuals that form whatever society we are part of - are often taught deeply that our voices are limited, votes don’t count, we don’t matter. Keep your head down, get a job, get married, raise a family, grow old, die. That in itself would be a dark and reductive assessment; but it doesn’t factor in economic instability so that you may wind up being forced to move from job to job, you may meet someone you live with a number of years only to grow apart. You divorce, meet someone else. By now, maybe you and your former spouse share custody of children; maybe you’ve secured employment at a company that you don’t like in a job you hate, but you keep going. Maybe you don’t turn to drugs or alcohol to numb the pain, but you’re not well; you are faced with health issues and can’t quit your miserable job because that’s the only way you can afford insurance. Your spouse works a job or has a career, as well, because there is no way anyone can raise a family based on one income anymore. The kids grow into adulthood and move out (or can’t because housing is too expensive and they’re saddled with hundreds of thousands of student debt). Maybe you and your second spouse live out your remaining days in a state of semi-okay to near catastrophic health. One of you dies before the other, leaving the other alone because the now-adult children can’t afford to take you in (or your surviving spouse.) This is why, in the midst of scenarios like this, people turn to the most ridiculous forms of entertainment and diversion.
I write about film for a variety of reasons but as much as possible, with an eye to discerning the merits of a specific work in the context of the art form as a whole and what that film says about us/me as humanity. I don’t believe any single film can change the world but some have had huge impact on our culture and by extension, on society. I also harbor no illusions that what I write is necessarily important, but using film and my experience of it, to try to understand what we’re about, may be helpful (or very much not) to others.
However, that still leaves the question of the social value of movies (and criticism) open. What do either matter in the larger mix of issues plaguing humanity and where do they hold their places in these issues, if at all?
There is a large part of me that has spent too much time making stuff and enjoying the creative process, often to address these questions directly, to say that “cinema doesn’t matter” and that writing about it holds no value (or about music, visual art, literature, etc.). There are plenty of examples of artists and art that confront the conflicts and contradictions inherent in society head-on. Often, these works tend to be didactic and executed clumsily (even though I like it, “Don’t Look Up” comes to mind) or skillfully (Sasha Baron Cohen’s Borat’s cringe-inducing movie of the same name; or for that matter, “Duck Soup”…or “Dr. Strangelove”…comedy is very often the strongest approach, but just about any Italian Neo-realist movie from Da Sica on or Godard, or Capra, or you get the idea, show how to engage social ideas deftly); the point is that these responses come about of necessity. Artists don’t exist in a vacuum and art isn’t made without a collective for it to engage and from which it arises (thank you, Daniel Kwan, for that observation last night.)
In other words, movies matter. Writing about them is a necessity, if only as an exercise to question the films themselves and even interrogate our own reasons why we respond to them the way we do. And awards?
If cinema existed in Ancient Greece, would there be Pindaric odes about films and filmmakers? Sure, probably. 2500 years down the line, we don’t have a poet of that order writing about them, but it would be silly to not recognize that some films create a societal response such that that recognition should be honored in some way.
In 1928, sound in motion pictures had become the critical element in replicating the sense of immediacy and “reality” to the onscreen images; film was beginning to deepen the theatrical experience by revealing the good, the bad, and the ugly limits to earlier performances. It would be increasingly difficult to move forward in film using grand gestures from live theater’s necessity of being visual to the seats in the rafters and forceful vocal projection to be heard. The hamminess of stage acting was beginning to give way prior to the advent of sound, but now it became a necessity. Consequently, unless it suited the material, a naturalistic approach was more pronounced and standard.
That’s not to say that more expressionistic approaches to film acting weren’t very often appropriate, if not necessary, but moving pictures brought a shift in perception, of how we perceive ourselves. The arch physicality of a Barrymore grew muted as the more subtle humanity of a Paul Muni became the norm. Some, like the Barrymores, were able to adapt (not all the time; Lionel and even John, could break out the ham), others, not so much. Plus, many of the older stars were aging out during the advent of the sound era and this would point to another, less savory aspect of cinema; the ageism of the industry that affected just about everyone, but women especially. Already the movies were reflecting the society at large in ways that most would rather not consider.
Add to that the prevailing sexism, xenophobia, and racism and the argument that movies don’t matter or aren’t important is stood on its head. I don’t mean the lauding of films that address those issues; I mean quite the opposite. The ugliness of the casual acceptance of keeping women, people of color, and “foreigners” down can be found in just about every product that came out of Hollywood well into the current era. The film industry reflected societal changes in each decade, in each generation.
Early on, beginning in the thirties, there were the “race” movies that took on prejudice full on, social justice flicks that examined poverty and addiction, even films that struggled to depict the subjugation of women in a society that sees women as nothing more than breeders and helpers to the men-folk found expression in any number of genres. Eventually, the issues these often obscure films grappled with found their way into major productions with scripts and films entering the mainstream(2). Complicating any progressive were institutions like the Hayes Code and the McCarthy hearings that derailed careers and often came close to ruining the industry, hobbling expression where it couldn’t completely squelch it(3).
By the 1960s, the forces at play in the outside (of Hollywood) world were coming to a head. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the racial tensions throughout the U.S. necessitated a critical reassessment of what the arts are for and who they are for. A lot of people wonder why I like exploitation films and often severely weird cult films and guerilla underground movies. Simple: they tend to examine, express, and exemplify the needs and voices of the marginalized, disenfranchised, and exploited voices of the historically oppressed in this country while both providing entertainment that offends the oppressor (catharsis) and eventually leads to recognition of the very issues that the larger (code word for “white, male, and straight”) society would rather ignore.
By the 1970s, we see more expansive uses of B-movie techniques enter the mainstream, more thematic subversion, and in general, less fear of confronting the sticky, uncomfortable elements in social realities. Even in the more repressive (the Reagan Era was not a progressive period, kids) 1980s, there were obvious retorts to the Culture Wars that were being ginned up to distract from the moral poverty of the ruling elite. Yeah, don’t look over there at the Iran-Contra Affair, there’s nothing to see in our incursions into Latin America, the Middle East or Southeast Asia (that we’ve already raped repeatedly, anyway). AIDS? Don’t mention it! We won’t! Regulations on businesses and environmental controls? Legacies of that weak-ass President Carter (not: the EPA was a legacy of their God Nixon’s administration - say what you will, but there was a time when the federal government could actually do something right). And so on.
While it’s true that the majority of films that were produced in the 80s were often mindless violent slasher flicks and idiotic sex comedies (very often for the teens whom Tipper Gore was trying to protect); coded in these might very frequently be anti-authoritarian stances. Sometimes, though rarely, maybe even a radical female hero. (Sarah Connor and “Ms.45” come to mind.)
I’m not going to argue that from the 90s onward, the film industry wised up and became a panacea of enlightened filmmaking. Far from it. But we’re getting closer to why I am about to subvert my own idea that the Oscars are irrelevant.
It’s been 21 years since a woman of color was awarded Best Lead Actress in a Motion Picture. Let that sink in for a minute. Going through Variety’s list of Black creatives snubbed (just since 2011) is instructive. Take a look, give it a good read. I’ll wait. Additionally, Buzzfeed ran a reflective piece on a male voter (anonymous, of course) who admitted he hadn’t seen “The Woman King” after denigrating Viola Davis and director Gina Prince-Bythewood. The piece examines and goes further to critique the whole voting process for the Oscars, particularly in the exclusion of Black voices from the ballots(4).
Now you may say, “wait a minute: didn’t “Everything Everywhere All at Once” clean up?!” Yes, obviously. However, that still doesn’t deflect from the #OscarsSoWhite argument that BIPOC people are still overwhelmingly excluded from the process, from recognition. And this might be why the Academy Awards actually do matter.
Not for the glad handing, back patting, circle jerking. They matter because they continue to reflect the thornier, more antagonistic forces and tensions in the industry the celebrate and in the broader world they inhabit. Do they represent American society? Not really, but they reflect the uneasy relationships the U.S. has with issues of race and representation, as well as feminism, equality, and ageism.
In other words, the Oscars are worth keeping around as a litmus for the industry, who controls it, and how it reflects similar trends throughout the U.S. and the larger societal tensions between the population of this country and the corporatist/capitalist interests that override our lives.
That could bleed any sense of fun out of the evening, right?
Except that it doesn’t. Not that the Oscars has been or even is - last night notwithstanding - “fun”. As I mentioned, I find the whole ceremony tedious and often the hackiest of productions. The high points of genuine entertainment are few and far between which is why I was really surprised by how much I enjoyed much of the show last night.
High points (aside from succinct, heartfelt and brief acceptances speeches):
- The musical numbers across the board. Even David Byrne, Son Lux, and Stephanie Hsu’s performance of “This Is A Life” plagued with sound issues was fab. I was particularly blown away by Lady Gaga’s of “Hold My Hand” from “Top Gun: Maverick” (best thing about the movie?) and (DUH!) “Naatu Naatu” from “RRR” (so fucking good!)
- Elizabeth Banks’ bit introducing Best Special Effects with Cocaine Bear.
- The enthusiasm the audience showed for almost every nominee.
There weren’t many low points. For the most part, Jimmy Kimmel was anodyne and once or twice got some good zings in here and there (political humor at the Oscars is safe, low-hanging fruit, but I’ll take it). Two that immediately come to mind:
- That said, his asking Malala to weigh in on the Chris Pine/Harry Styles Spitting Affair was stupid. The woman is there enjoying the show, her film nominated, and the best Kimmel or the writers could come up with is asking something that stupid? It wasn’t even clever. Ugh, I hate that shit. “Oh, hey, Nobel Peace Prize winner…this is the best we could do!”
- Jenny the Mule turned out to not be the real Jenny from “Banshees of Inisherin” and it’s almost like everyone was duped. Nice way to make asses out of everyone, Kimmel. Or, again, writers.
Let’s take a quick look at the wins in some categories or at least at the juggernauts that “Everything Everywhere All At Once” and “All Quiet on the Western Front” turned out to be.
I told my sister that I had no gripes for the first time in forever about the winners from each category. While I was holding out hope that Colin Farrell would take the Best Lead Actor statue home, I was overjoyed and so goddamn happy for Brendan Fraser.
Jamie Lee Curtis and Ke Huy Quan winning? You would have to be a truly heartless bastard to take issue with either of those.
Guillermo Del Toro’s win for “Pinocchio” was his third Oscar and frankly, so deserved. This was also a tight one, but I stand by my assessment of the picture and I wholeheartedly agree that “animation is not a genre”; hopefully, this will be understood sooner than later.
“Naatu Naatu”! That is all. I actually did/do adore all the nominees for Best Song, but dammit, this is something. It remains a disappointment that only two Indian films have been nominated for Oscars (“Salaam Bombay” in 1988 and Lagaan in 2001) and the best the Academy could do is give Satyajit Ray an honorary Oscar? I’ll take what I can get and if it’s to be Best Song (in the 21st Century), fine.
And of course, Michelle Yeoh taking home the gold guy for Best Lead Actress. That Halle Berry was co-presenter with Jessica Chastain is, I hope, not lost on anyone. I’d love to know if Michelle and Halle discussed, at all, how messed up (to use Buzzfeed’s phrase) it is that there is over two decades between them with no non-white woman recipient. That said, I’ve carried a torch for Michelle for going on four decades and I’m not gonna stop.
That said, yeah, it was a tough call between her and Blanchett for me, but Cate’s fine; “Tár” is a towering achievement and award or no, it’s in the canon of great films from this decade.
As an aside, and someone check me on this, but I think Michelle is the third oldest woman to receive the Best Lead Actress statue. Jessica Tandy was 80 when she got it for “Driving Miss Daisy” (don’t get me started on that shit; she was great in the role and I do mean it, but the movie is a pandering whitey feel good movie if there ever was one and “Do The Right Thing” wasn’t even nominated?! FFS.) Katherine Hepburn picked up her fourth statue for “On Golden Pond”, another example of sentimentality on the Academy’s part; yes, she and Fonda are fine in it, but it’s neither of their best work but Henry’s kid pretty much tanks the film for me and the direction is, frankly, awful.)
Anyway, I’ll take sixty more years of Michelle Yeoh on this planet.
I seem to have subverted myself and reversed my almost lifelong argument against the Academy Awards as an institution. I hope they continue the trend of succinctness and one hopes that things change for the better societally so that maybe, things will change for the better in the film industry and ceremonies like last night become more the norm than the exception.
Appendix
For my thoughts on each of the Best Picture nominees, here are links to each review:
All Quiet on the Western Front
Everything Everywhere All At Once
References
- Thompson, Anne. “Anonymous Oscar Ballot: After Seeing It 3 Times, Director Finally Embraces the ‘Modern’ ‘Everything Everywhere’”. IndieWire. https://www.indiewire.com/2023/03/anonymous-oscar-ballot-director-everything-everywhere-all-at-once-1234818315/amp/. March 11, 2023.
- Filmsite has a strong list of a hundred movies rated as “socially important.” To their credit, they are smart enough to include some titles from exploitation cinema as well as many of the mainstream films I have in mind. https://www.filmsite.org/mostinfluentialfilms5.html.
- If anyone needs to study the crushing effect of prohibitionism, moral policing, and political witch hunts on the arts, the history of cinema from the 1930s through the 1950s in America is a stunning Exhibit A. For interested parties, here are some links to resources I find useful: https://www.google.com/books/edition/American_Cinema_American_Culture/a4YVDAEACAAJ?hl=en; https://www.google.com/books/edition/Cinema_Studies_The_Key_Concepts/vziDAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0; https://www.google.com/books/edition/Hollywood_Party/CRspOQAACAAJ?hl=en.
- Jokic, Natasha. “A Voter For The 2023 Oscars Said That "Viola Davis And The Lady Director" Need To "Shut Up" After "Woman King" Was Snubbed, And It Shows How Messed Up This Whole Process Is”. BuzzFeed. https://www.buzzfeed.com/natashajokic1/oscars-2023-voter-woman-king-till-snubs. March 10, 2023.
___________________________________________________________________________________
As much as this blog is a labor of love (and it is!), it does take time and effort to write and maintain. If you enjoy what you see here, consider following me on Patreon.
I am also open to suggestions and if you’d like me to cover a film or films or topic, email me at myreactionshots@gmail.com. For a regular review/analysis of around 2500 to 3000 words, I charge $50 flat rate. A series would be negotiable. Follow me on Patreon at $20 a month and after two months, you can call the shots on a film analysis, director/actor/cinematographer profile, or the theme of your choice!
Comments
Post a Comment