oh the academy
So I didn't watch the Oscars. Because I don't have cable anymore. But do you know what I think it's funny and quite telling? So recently a expose came out about the demographics of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Surprising no one it turns out from the data collected the Academy appears to be overwhelmingly white, male, and old. I don't even mean "oh I'm 23 and I think 40-year-olds are old." I mean that 94% of the Academy is white, 77% is male, and 54% is over the age of 60.
Coming off of that, we got one of the most dated and self-congratulatory Academy Awards shows in quite some time. I watched the opening number, the monologue, the random clips, and of course read the winner's list. Who won most of the awards? A silent movie about the transition from silent films to talkies (a rehashing of Singin' in the Rain) and a movie about the magic of Cinema. The host was Billy Crystal who himself is quite literally the avatar of the Academy (white, male, and 63-years-old) and aside from Emma Stone, none of the presenters were under 30. Most weren't even under 40. Watching Crystal go through the usual awards show stuff it felt like I was watching the Academy Awards with my mom back in the 90s. Oh hey, actors talking about how great the movies are. Oh hey a random Cirque du Soliel performance about the magic of cinema which was so important actual winners like Octavia Spencer needed to be played off stage to make room for it. It felt retro in the worst possible way.
In accordance with my own feelings about the show (or the highlights I got from it), pretty much every venue I've read that reviewed the show thinks it was old and boring too. Except one person. Do you know who DIDN'T think the show was dated? Thought it was actually a nice throwback to the golden age of cinema? Roger Ebert, that's who. Because, of course. Old white guy of the 60s set thinks the show was great. ::eye roll::
I don't have anything against old. I don't have anything against throwback and the classics. What I have something against is the obvious choice Academy members make to ignore new and/or evocative things. Just look at last year's win, The King's Speech. It's a nice film but it doesn't say much aside from the usual "white privileged male overcomes adversity to triumph and continue his white privileged life." The last thing I can remember that won that actually felt edgy was No Country For Old Men and that was about aging and being left behind and not getting the world we live in anymore. Which I mean... Come on.
This year had so many more interesting films than Hugo and The Artist. Ignoring my feelings for either films, it's infuriating that they completely ignored experimental throwback near-silent pastiche like Drive or a critical look at motherhood and what it would take to actually dislike your own child (We Need to Talk About Kevin). The latter film was directed by a woman and featured a truly interesting and powerful performance from the crazy talented Tilda Swinton. But of course neither director nor actress were nominated. Do you know that only 4 women have every been nominated for best director and only one has ever won? EVER!? And not a single African American woman. Not that many people of color in that category in general. Steve McQueen who directed Shame should have been nominated but maybe his movie had too many penises. Who knows.
Or what about Young Adult? Yes it makes people uncomfortable but it's raw and real and a pretty blunt take on addiction. Sometimes people don't recover. Sometimes they just become more self-centered and fucked up.
If the Academy Awards is supposed to signify the apex of the year's films I think it's slowly turning into an outdated and obsolete system. There is no way to properly judge all the films that have come out in any fair way when nearly everyone in your voting public are the same. It's the same issue with movies in general. We want stories about people of color, about women, about homosexuality but Hollywood continues time and again to only employ middle aged white men to make those movies. This year more so than any other year I've felt like the Awards season has been complete shit. There are so many movies out there that actually say something, that do something new, that make an impact on how cinema will be made in the future. The only movie that has managed to represent that is Bridesmaids and it was only nominated for screenplay and supporting actress.
Other than that, the old white dudes behind motion pictures have decided to ignore anything that might challenge their world views and opted for the things that pretty much pander to them. Movies about movies. Oh and also the Help, an accessible glossy sugar-coated film about segregation, so that you don't think they're racist. I mean really? What a lazy choice. What about Pariah? A film about an teenage African-American girl struggling with her sexuality?
::sigh::
In closing, here is a really cool article about Madonna and third wave feminism. I especially like this line:
"The problem with our preoccupation on the perils of the pursuit of beauty and fame is that it can sometimes only serve to bolster ideas about feminine weakness instead of actually protecting women."
I think one of the big issues with "feminism" and attempting to define what it is and what we should believe when we adopt it is the inevitable narrow mindedness. Women start to police each other. No you can't be feminist if you insist on adhering to traditional gender roles. You want to be a housewife? You are obviously brainwashed and not feminist. Madonna is either a feminist icon or a sell-out for buying into the sexualization of women. But I think what's more important is agency, equality, and choice. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be sexy and young at 60 or choosing to be a housewife. What is wrong is a society that removes choice so that women feel they HAVE to be housewives and sexy. True equality is where you can be what you want independent of societal expectations and limitations, where young girls can aspire to be presidents instead of presidents' wives. All that other stuff is just detail.
Coming off of that, we got one of the most dated and self-congratulatory Academy Awards shows in quite some time. I watched the opening number, the monologue, the random clips, and of course read the winner's list. Who won most of the awards? A silent movie about the transition from silent films to talkies (a rehashing of Singin' in the Rain) and a movie about the magic of Cinema. The host was Billy Crystal who himself is quite literally the avatar of the Academy (white, male, and 63-years-old) and aside from Emma Stone, none of the presenters were under 30. Most weren't even under 40. Watching Crystal go through the usual awards show stuff it felt like I was watching the Academy Awards with my mom back in the 90s. Oh hey, actors talking about how great the movies are. Oh hey a random Cirque du Soliel performance about the magic of cinema which was so important actual winners like Octavia Spencer needed to be played off stage to make room for it. It felt retro in the worst possible way.
In accordance with my own feelings about the show (or the highlights I got from it), pretty much every venue I've read that reviewed the show thinks it was old and boring too. Except one person. Do you know who DIDN'T think the show was dated? Thought it was actually a nice throwback to the golden age of cinema? Roger Ebert, that's who. Because, of course. Old white guy of the 60s set thinks the show was great. ::eye roll::
I don't have anything against old. I don't have anything against throwback and the classics. What I have something against is the obvious choice Academy members make to ignore new and/or evocative things. Just look at last year's win, The King's Speech. It's a nice film but it doesn't say much aside from the usual "white privileged male overcomes adversity to triumph and continue his white privileged life." The last thing I can remember that won that actually felt edgy was No Country For Old Men and that was about aging and being left behind and not getting the world we live in anymore. Which I mean... Come on.
This year had so many more interesting films than Hugo and The Artist. Ignoring my feelings for either films, it's infuriating that they completely ignored experimental throwback near-silent pastiche like Drive or a critical look at motherhood and what it would take to actually dislike your own child (We Need to Talk About Kevin). The latter film was directed by a woman and featured a truly interesting and powerful performance from the crazy talented Tilda Swinton. But of course neither director nor actress were nominated. Do you know that only 4 women have every been nominated for best director and only one has ever won? EVER!? And not a single African American woman. Not that many people of color in that category in general. Steve McQueen who directed Shame should have been nominated but maybe his movie had too many penises. Who knows.
Or what about Young Adult? Yes it makes people uncomfortable but it's raw and real and a pretty blunt take on addiction. Sometimes people don't recover. Sometimes they just become more self-centered and fucked up.
If the Academy Awards is supposed to signify the apex of the year's films I think it's slowly turning into an outdated and obsolete system. There is no way to properly judge all the films that have come out in any fair way when nearly everyone in your voting public are the same. It's the same issue with movies in general. We want stories about people of color, about women, about homosexuality but Hollywood continues time and again to only employ middle aged white men to make those movies. This year more so than any other year I've felt like the Awards season has been complete shit. There are so many movies out there that actually say something, that do something new, that make an impact on how cinema will be made in the future. The only movie that has managed to represent that is Bridesmaids and it was only nominated for screenplay and supporting actress.
Other than that, the old white dudes behind motion pictures have decided to ignore anything that might challenge their world views and opted for the things that pretty much pander to them. Movies about movies. Oh and also the Help, an accessible glossy sugar-coated film about segregation, so that you don't think they're racist. I mean really? What a lazy choice. What about Pariah? A film about an teenage African-American girl struggling with her sexuality?
::sigh::
In closing, here is a really cool article about Madonna and third wave feminism. I especially like this line:
"The problem with our preoccupation on the perils of the pursuit of beauty and fame is that it can sometimes only serve to bolster ideas about feminine weakness instead of actually protecting women."
I think one of the big issues with "feminism" and attempting to define what it is and what we should believe when we adopt it is the inevitable narrow mindedness. Women start to police each other. No you can't be feminist if you insist on adhering to traditional gender roles. You want to be a housewife? You are obviously brainwashed and not feminist. Madonna is either a feminist icon or a sell-out for buying into the sexualization of women. But I think what's more important is agency, equality, and choice. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be sexy and young at 60 or choosing to be a housewife. What is wrong is a society that removes choice so that women feel they HAVE to be housewives and sexy. True equality is where you can be what you want independent of societal expectations and limitations, where young girls can aspire to be presidents instead of presidents' wives. All that other stuff is just detail.