It was an eloquent moment. The box, which actor Will Smith gave on stage to moderator Chris Rock, symbolized the decline that the most prestigious film award and its gala evening have experienced in recent years.
The moderator joked on behalf of the shaved head of Jada Pinkett Smith, whom he fit into the role in the sequel to GI Jane. Smith’s wife, who won the award for best acting, suffers from alopecia – a disease that causes hair loss.
Although an enraged Hollywood doyen has apologized for his behavior, he will not take the blow back. Like the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, it cannot reverse what happened to an event that has been one of the highlights of the global social season for many decades.
The eclipse over Hollywood’s Dolby Theater, where golden statuettes for the best filmmakers have been handed over since 2002, was not only caused by the covid and this year’s war in Ukraine. The Oscars lose their relevance because they try to thank everyone – and they do not address anyone. Neither a group of social equality fighters nor more conservative spectators.
–
For many years, the American Academy has been blamed for ignoring women and non-white skin makers. Yesterday, director Jane Campion won the statuette for the best director of The Dog’s Power, but the critics are not satisfied, because she was the only woman in the five nominees.
As the African-American, the aforementioned Will Smith won the statuette for Best Actor and slapped African-American presenter Rock, who had recently complained of the Academy’s disregard for dark-skinned actors, but no one is still satisfied.
Activists also say Smith hit Rock because he doesn’t make fun of African American women’s hair. “They are often subject to appropriation and ridicule,” journalist Tema Smith writes on her Twitter. In addition, Chris Rock made a documentary on the subject of African American hair, aptly titled Good Hair.
For proponents of social progress, the Oscars are just a charade that doesn’t solve systemic problems, and for those who miss Hollywood in the days of producer and sex predator Harvey Weinstein, the ceremony is just another slave to hypocritical political correctness.
Already last year, according to Forbes, the Oscar gala evening was watched by fifty percent fewer spectators than in 2020. At that time, ten million people watched the broadcast, while in 2014 it was 44 million. So why are the Oscars losing their position to be the ultimate arbiter of a good film that keeps its finger on the pulse of time? Because, in fact, time slipped through their fingers.
A good illustration is the example of the Ukrainian war conflict. Although it is happening on the other side of the globe, far from Hollywood glitter, several film celebrities have drawn attention to the conflict with their philanthropic activities. For example, the Ukrainian native Mila Kunis and her husband Ashton Kutcher chose thirty million dollars for the conflict-torn country.
And although Kunis, as one of the transmitters, was given considerable room to stir up the crowds, she wiped out the conflict in general phrases, without mentioning Ukraine or Russia. Sean Penn, who recently filmed his documentary in Ukraine, called for a boycott of the event if the gala evening did not allow President Volodymyr Zelenský.
Instead, there was just a stern text message of support. The Oscars were able to raise awareness of the war in Europe – instead they pushed it to the margins.
The legendary gift bags, which the winners and nominees receive at their prizes, acted as pure hypocrisy. This time it was tangible and intangible prices in the amount of 3.5 million crowns for the recipient. Not that it wouldn’t be nice to get, for example, a private stay at a castle in Scotland or a botox treatment for ten thousand dollars.
However, the question arises as to whether, in the spirit of the Oscar-winning statement that “we can help more”, millions should not have targeted Ukraine. It seemed nihilistic when executive producer Will Packer declared in his defense that “The Oscars must remain a cheerful show.” For whom?
The world of art, culture and celebrities no longer needs a single center that approves what is great and what is not. The film industry itself has also changed: we don’t have to go to the cinema for premieres, they often come to us earlier on streaming platforms.
If the Oscars want to live to have their hundredth birthday, they have a lot of work to do. Not in the context of a cultural war between a progressive and a conservative audience, but in revealing their inner marches.
Who is the Academy that selects the best films, and why should we listen to her opinion at all? What is relevant for us?
Because being a merry show is not punishable – but ignorant is.
–
–
