It's part of why I think a lot of people don't get into the literature and the knowledge of LGBTq issues, or womens' issues, or reproductive issues, or First Nations' issues, or immigrant/ undocumented issues, and the list goes on. I don't claim to be an expert on any of them, but when I have a question, I'll go read what I can about it and ask questions from people who have firsthand experience.
So, while I would normally tell someone to go and do the reading them self and make their own determination, I'll answer a series of questions posed to me:
Are the Oscars racist? Would they be Racist if Selma didn't win? Is this a chicken or an egg? Thoughts?
I thought about it during my treadmill time.
THIS IS SACRED TIME. Normally I think of how to plan my day, my week, my month, my year. Instead, I took a few days to swish this around my brain like red wine.
Defining "racist," I like the "prejudice + power" description, which argues that those with power are the only ones who can be racist. In America, that suggests that individuals, tribes, and institutions have power that can be used justly or not. When it's not used justly - in order to deny someone access to jobs or housing or power, then it's racist.
----------
In the Academy's case, it's a lack of awareness of projects that are different and a concerted effort by its membership to remain on top of this powerful institution. Hollywood produces some of the final tangible things that America does well: pop culture, image, and "cool". Also, this is the ongoing affect of years of marginalization of people who weren't mainstream, i.e. straight white men with dark hair or slight straight white women with "delicate" features. Movies that come out are, typically: predominantly white, male-centered, and tell the same stories over and over. There should be more stories told from a woman's perspective or a Latin-America perspective or an Asian American perspective or just something new.
The stories I've read from minority and women members of that community (typically actors and stars) are shocking as they speak to the real powers that be: theater owners, studios, producers, directors, etc. Gatekeepers with power, who choose those they would feature in their work and subsequently share some influence with. They will tell you what to like and that you should like it. Often this is successful, but a lot of times it just doesn't ring true.
We all know The Real Thing when we see it.
Paul Newman? The Real Thing.
Chris O'Donnell... I'm sure he'll find work.
But like almost everyone, you don't get to make decisions until you create something successful that has your fingerprints on it. Look at Will Smith or Don Cheadle or Reese Witherspoon or Sandra Bullock. All of them have aged out of being the Hot Young Thing and know that their only way to remain employable is to create their own work because, honestly, there are few stories being created about people outside of specific "types." I don't think Hollywood is some liberal bastion, despite whatever your national news team says. So yeah, the Academy has some racist tendencies, but it also doesn't care that it leaves out those people not in the club
----------
In short it's probably not racist. Knowing who voted and why they voted would get a firm answer, so until then this just seems poorly executed by the studio that sent out little-to-no screeners and maybe inattentive by the people who vote.
Movies are art, art is subjective, and people are unique and dynamic with backgrounds that, while similar, can vary because of everything inside of us. Depending on how they were raised, where they were raised, and who they were raised by - the same amazement I get from early Spike Lee movies (seriously, She's Gotta Have It through Malcolm X are phenomenal... after that, it seems like Spike and America needed a break until inside Man) or from the first time I saw The Apartment isn't going to affect anyone exactly like it did me.
So, while I've seen most of the movies nominated this year except The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Imitation Game, and Whiplash - I know that certain art speaks to me from my experience, *but* because I can say that some things were executed better in a storytelling sense.
I'll give Selma this - it manages to be relevant, well-executed, well-acted, and beautiful (visually and storytelling-wise) in a genre that's actually sparse and poorly done: "civil rights movies." When I look back, there is a dearth of movies that aren't paint-by-numbers (Ghosts of Mississippi) or uncomfortable (The Help). Though some do have great performances - it's hard to find a movie with a story that isn't hitting you over the head with dialogue that's just exposition for how fucked up life in America can be for non-white folks.
Is it a chicken or egg? It's easier to see that systems existed, channels were created and you had to learn how to succeed within them while creating a new path. I suspect that over the next 5 to 10 years, you'll see a lot more opportunities as more creators of varied color, gender, orientation, etc. start developing projects.
----------
"Civil Rights" narrative movies that are well done:
- Malcolm X (1991)
- Ghandi (1983)
- To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)
- Thelma and Louise (1991)
- Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967)
- Hairspray (1988)
- Milk (2008)
- Talk to Me (2007)
- The Road to Brown (1990)
- Black Power Mixtape (2011)
- The Times of Harvey Milk (1984)
- Paris is Burning (1990)
- Trembling Before G-d (2003)
- The Color Purple (1985)
- Mississippi Burning (1988)
- Blazing Saddles (1974)
- 9 to 5 (1980)
- Erin Brockovich (2000)
- Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song (1971)
- Get on the Bus (1996)
- White Dog (1983)
- Also, actors I think give off the DGAF/ powerful/ bold attitude: Susan Sarandon, Meryl Streep, Denzel Washington, Kathy Bates, Sandra Oh, Peggy Lipton, George Clooney, Sandra Bullock, and Don Cheadle
It's always good to ask questions. Sometimes I like answering them. But always try and find the answers out there. Hell, I'm still looking for a lot of them myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment