Politics and the Academy Awards

Last night’s Academy Awards ceremony contained some of the more politically charged acceptance speeches I have seen in some time.

Patricia Arquette used her Best Supporting Actress win to speak in favor of ecological preservation and against wage inequality. Musical artists Common and John Legend used their win for Best Original Song to bridge the past of the African American Civil Rights Movement to present struggles of human rights. The crew responsible for Best Documentary winner Citizenfour described how the country's democracy is lost when the government spies on citizens with impunity. Adapted screenplay winner Graham Moore spoke directly to young people struggling with societal alienation because of their sexual identity. Finally, the ceremony became a venue to discuss U.S. foreign policy and immigration – either for the better or for the worse.

These issues share a common origin - emanating from governments making decisions that affect the lives of millions of people.  That the producers or director of last night’s broadcast chose not to interrupt these speeches and have the orchestra play off the speakers as their comments drifted towards the political is terrific.  Indeed, parts of last night’s event harkened to a time when cinematic artists used the Academy Awards to promote awareness of serious issues affecting millions of people.  Marlon Brando, for example, famously boycotted the event in 1973 to raise awareness of the plight of Native Americans, while Sacheen Littlefeather explained Brando’s refusal of Best Actor statue for The Godfather.

Certainly, in the decades since, the Oscars ceremony seems to have become an over-produced affair in the hands of network executive control freaks eager to avoid any controversy.  Last night’s proceedings suggest somewhat of a changing environment, but there also seems to be an inherent hypocrisy in all of this.

Twelve years ago, Michael Moore accepted the Best Documentary award for Bowling for Columbine - an excellent film that examines American gun culture and the violence it creates.  During his acceptance speech, Moore criticized the administration of George W. Bush for leading the country into an invasion of Iraq while questioning the legitimacy of Bush’s presidency itself.  While some in the audience applauded, Moore received more jeers than cheers for his comments.  In light of more recent events in Iraq, it seems Moore was ahead of the curve with his observations at the time.

The issues of civil liberties and human dignity that this year’s Oscar  winners highlighted in their acceptance speeches are important and need addressing because they affect us all.  Those among the Hollywood elite and their supporters, however, ought to be mindful that it is much too easy in a free society to applaud someone who advocates for a social issue with an opinion you agree with.  It is braver and more honest to applaud those you do not agree with and who stand for something not because it is popular, but because it is right.

The Academy Awards: The Class Edition

There has been much discussion about the displays of sexism and racism at Sunday’s 85^th Academy Awards ceremony broadcast.  Much of the criticisms have taken aim at host Seth MacFarlane and the Twitter feed of the satirical newspaper, The Onion. Whatever problems the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has with gender and race that spilled into last night’s telecast, it seems they are less about either gender or race.  Rather, any poorly dim views of race and gender likely are based more in class than in anything else. 

To some extent, the Oscar ceremony is a display of some of the most privileged among us using their wealth and power to throw a lavish, self-congratulatory spectacle for themselves.  The rest of us are asked to witness this display and are expected to share in the revelry of the rich and famous wallowing in their own successes.  In such an environment, is it any wonder that the privileged class holds some of us – like minorities and women - in such contempt?

A look at some of last night’s winners beyond their performances demonstrates how well heeled they are.  Celebritynetworth.com reports that Best Actor winner Daniel Day-Lewis was worth up to $40 million dollars as recently as October 2010.  At about that same time, Best Supporting Actor winner Christoph Waltz was worth $10 million.  As of July 2010, Best Supporting Actress winner Anne Hathaway was worth up to $15 million.  Best Actress winner Jennifer Lawrence was worth only $2 million as of July 2011.  She earned a mere $500,000 for her role in The Hunger Games, but reportedly will earn $10 million for the next installment of that movie franchise.  Her win last night likely will enable her to demand even more money for any future projects.  And the producers of Best Picture winner Argo?  Ben Affleck was worth as much as $65 million as recently as January 2010.  His co-producer, George Clooney, had a staggering reported net worth of $160 million as recently as January 2011.

Most of us can only imagine the power and privilege that comes with this kind of wealth.  At best, it leads to the kind of self-indulgence demonstrated during the annual awards season.  At worst, it enables an ever-widening gap between filmmakers, actors, and other artists and entertainers and their audiences; who, after all, pay their salaries.