Meet the Ukippers! » « I don’t think it’ll appear at the Oscars

Who watched the Academy Awards? Who cared?

I saw Birdman a while back. I didn’t actually like it very much, but I respected it — it’s a movie about actors acting about acting, and they acted the hell out of it. I was totally unsurprised that it won a bunch of Oscars last night, because the people voting on it were all in the acting business, and rightly enough, they all voted for the well-acted movie that was about them.

You want a more thorough review? Here’s a pair that take both positions, and I agree with both of them. It’s a movie that was too self-absorbed to interest me, but I think it thoroughly deserved an award by and for actors.

That’s all I know. I didn’t even watch the Oscars.

Or you could talk about Patricia Arquette’s backstage remarks.

It is time for us. It is time for women. …The truth is even though we sort of feel like there is, there are huge issues that are at play and really do affect women. It’s time for all the women in America, and the men who love women and all the gay people and people of color we’ve all fought for to fight for us now.

Did she just hang a big “Mission Accomplished” sign over the issues of racism and LGBT rights, and say that it’s time for all the black and gay people to start working for straight white women’s rights? Because that’s sure what it sounded like.

Meet the Ukippers! » « I don’t think it’ll appear at the Oscars

Comments

  2. Kristina Muskiewicz says

    To be fair, I don’t think Arquette was saying “Mission Accomplished”. She was saying “hey, women fight for all your rights and stand up for you, and you should come join us and stand up for women”. More of a “we’re all in this together so let’s all fight for each other” kind of thing.

  7. rq says

    Kristina
    Well, people of colour have been interpreting that as a dismissive statement that implies that neither people of colour nor queer people are also women, and they should come support white, straight women RIGHT NOW, regardless of what they’re actually doing.
    In addition, it’s a rather ignorant statement, considering that men of colour are paid about the same as white women, in some cases even less (see all the charts here). And yet she focusses only on the women while grouping people of colour and LGBTA folk outside of that category.
    And incidentally, considering the renewed fight for civil rights going on in America since August, it sounds a lot like ‘drop what you’re doing and come help me!’. Because I searched the internet, and I have not seen any published statement of Particia Arquette’s on racism, injustice, or anything else about which these activists have been trying to raise awareness. So, is she a part of that ‘we’ that has been fighting for all those other rights (because let me tell ya, white people on racism… not a stellar record)? Has she organized or at least participated in any letter-writing, protesting, informational speeches on racism and disproportionate police brutality against people of colour, or perhaps the wage gap between white and black people, or income inequality? Educational inequality, the school-to-prison pipeline? Has she been fighting for people of colour, and LGBT folk, too? On the first, I would say, Not Really. I can’t speak to the second, but perhaps she should actually look into who is fighting for whom and whose rights a little more before being so (unintentionally, I will say charitably) dismissive of others who are also struggling.
    Because I know of activists who are queer, black and women, and they somehow manage to be inclusive of everyone, with an eye to everyone’s freedom, not just their own. They don’t sound at all like Patricia Arquette above.
    (If she ever has addressed any of these issues – racism, LGBT acceptance – please point me to them and I will revise my opinion, if necessary.)

  10. pacal says

    The last time I watched the Oscars was almost 40 years ago. The show was several hours overtime and monumentally boring. I have not watched it since. I have better things to do like sleep.

  11. twas brillig (stevem) says

    I did not watch the backstage portion, so I will not comment on those. I was really pleased by her acceptance speech that really made a case for the inequality of women vs men pay scales.

    I knew the Acadamy would try to redeem themselves for racism by awarding as much as they could to Selma, but only gave it the Best Song award. Speaking of which, I had no idea MLK was played by a Brit, but NPH had to torchlight that for (attempted)comedic affect. Flew way over my head, that one.

    As for LGBT issues, the Turing “adapter” highlighted that issue and gave a very personal story about how acceptance of “weird” is vital to distribute to future generations of weirds.

    Birdman, uhhhh, talk about weird… I too saw it, thought it was “interesting”, but not Oscar worthy, totally overwhelmed by how many statues it won. But I gotta agree, actors voting on a movie about actors acting on stage (and all the backstage ‘drama’) trying desperately to maintain their cred after fading from limelight, sounds like a natural winner. Cinematography was certainly deserved, with its “trick” of illusioning a complex filming into the appearance of a single camera, taking one long shot of “live” action. It effectively pulled me “into” the scene, as if I was actually in the presence of Birdman and company. But the overall plot was just “wha?”

  12. says

    Yes, Arquette really managed to be #whitefeminism in person. The worst thing is that those people don’t even stop and wonder if they might be doing something wrong.
    Sorry, my fellow white straight cis ladies, let’s acknowledge this: Quite often, we’ve stood on the fucking wrong side of the battlefield. We like to say stuff like “women voted for Obama”, and earn the fruits of the work of WoC. Let’s stop being fucking ignorant.

  13. bigwhale says

    It seemed like there would have been an audience for more dwelling on social issues, but instead we get impassioned speeches played off to make more time for jokes about balls, green cards, and funny accents.

    Common, Legend, and even Arquette could have been given more time considering they got the biggest applause. Something was really needed to draw it all together. To say that the issues faced by Turing, MLK, women, and all discriminated groups is thinking of them as less than. Less deserving of respect and opportunity. That process requires effort so while we have this stage we need to use it.

    Instead issues were used more as props for emotion. As if there is no difference between using Turing or a funny dance to entertain us.

  14. ragdish says

    The exclusion of African American actors, directors, etc. from this year’s Oscars was appalling. But was the arrow pointing towards social justice with inclusion of movies that explore LGBT and disabilities ie. Alan Turing and Stephen Hawking? It certainly does not negate the bias against the accomplishments of African Americans but can we give the Academy credit for showing support for these other marginalized groups?

  15. Tony! The Queer Shoop says

    Ragdish @14:
    In addition to a history of whitewashing and racebending, Hollywood has long excluded LGBT people from movie roles and while I do not know for certain, I suspect the same can be said of people with disabilities. I am glad the Academy is showing support for both groups but they have a long way to go before they get a pat on the back from me.

  16. Tony! The Queer Shoop says

    Incidentally, Hollywood is biased against other marginalized groups aside from African-Americans. The motion picture film industry as a whole has long exhibited and continues to exhibit bias in favor of white, heterosexual, able-bodied, cisgender men.

  19. says

    I saw Birdman briefly while browsing at Best Buy, but didn’t really get a feel for what it was about from the back. Just to confirm, it’s not about a superhero who decided to become an attorney, right?

  21. unclefrogy says

    Hollywood? Hollywood movies? really tinsel and glitter. and huge profit. All the criticism is lagit and well deserved but it is Hollywood after all and the reflex is to grovel to the right so anything remotely liberal is seen as shocking and is seen as marring the festivities while individually they can take a stand but collectively through the management they fear open political speech goes double for “the academy”
    anything is better than nothing Hollywood has again come up to the low standard and pushed a little beyond but just a little.
    uncle frogy

  22. freemage says

    Tony! The Queer Shoop

    23 February 2015 at 10:08 am

    Ragdish @14:
    In addition to a history of whitewashing and racebending, Hollywood has long excluded LGBT people from movie roles and while I do not know for certain, I suspect the same can be said of people with disabilities. I am glad the Academy is showing support for both groups but they have a long way to go before they get a pat on the back from me.

    It’s really bad, generally, when talking about people with disabilities in film–the vast majority of actors called to play such roles are perfectly healthy individuals. Studios these days would rather CGI off Gary Sinise’s legs than find someone who actually had an amputated leg to play the part of Lt. Dan.

  23. tomh says

    @ #22
    ” Studios these days would rather CGI off Gary Sinise’s legs than find someone who actually had an amputated leg to play the part of Lt. Dan.”

    Really? Only amputees could play that part? And would you have only gay actors play gay characters and only straight actors play straight characters? I wouldn’t. That’s why it’s called acting.

  26. nich says

    From my link@25: “I didn’t think Selma was a particularly good film, apart from the main actor [David Oyelowo], and I think the outcry about the Academy being racists for not nominating it for more awards is offensive — we have a two-term president who is a black woman [Cheryl Boone Isaacs] and we give out awards to black people when they deserve them, just like any other group.”

  27. Callinectes says

    #11 I had no idea MLK was played by a Brit

    There is a tradition of talented black actors and comedians simmering in relative obscurity in Britain, before finding much more opportunity and success in America.

  28. nich says

    And more great stuff:

    First, let me say that I’m tired of all of this talk about “snubs” — I thought for every one of [the snubs] there was a justifiable reason. What no one wants to say out loud is that Selma is a well-crafted movie, but there’s no art to it. If the movie had been directed by a 60-year-old white male, I don’t think that people would have been carrying on about it to the level that they were. And as far as the accusations about the Academy being racist? Yes, most members are white males, but they are not the cast of Deliverance — they had to get into the Academy to begin with, so they’re not cretinous, snaggletoothed hillbillies. When a movie about black people is good, members vote for it. But if the movie isn’t that good, am I supposed to vote for it just because it has black people in it? I’ve got to tell you, having the cast show up in T-shirts saying “I can’t breathe” [at their New York premiere] — I thought that stuff was offensive. Did they want to be known for making the best movie of the year or for stirring up shit?

  29. Tony! The Queer Shoop says

    tomh@22:
    The problem is that Hollywood is notoriously biased against LGBT people and people with disabilities. To correct this unfair and prejudicial trend, Hollywood executives and casting directors need to hire more people from both groups. Its much the same issue as the problematic and continued practices of whitewashing and racebending. By using ablebodied or heterosexual actors, it takes jobs away from LGBT people or those with disabilities.

  30. nich says

    And another Oscar voter chimes in!:

    Based on the way that we [the Academy] have been able to embrace 12 Years a Slave and various black actors and actresses through the years, I don’t believe for one minute that race had anything to do with the director or actor from Selma not getting nominated.

  32. nich says

    drst@31: Or how fucking much they whitewashed that fucking murdering, lying jackass Chris Kyle. So Selma doesn’t kiss some white president’s wing and it’s the most offensive thing ever, but turning Chris Kyle into a sainted fucking war hero is the stuff of Oscar gold!

  33. Tony! The Queer Shoop says

    nich @28:
    Sounds like yet another person who doesnt understand the institutionalized racism that dominates Hollywood. Rather, they seem to be of the mindset that racism consists of individual acts of bigotry and discrimination. Le sigh.

  34. rq says

    nich @28
    I was looking for that article earlier today! For posting on Reagan’s Morning thread.
    Also, the whole ‘there’s no art to it’ argument is just laughable. Had it been directed by a 60-year-old white male, I’m pretty sure it would be up for a nomination.
    And LBJ would have saved the entire civil rights movement.

  35. nich says

    Let me fix it for you, anonymous academy voter: “And as far as the accusations about the Academy being racist? Yes. Most members are white males.”

    Sometimes a simple change in punctuation makes all the difference!

  36. nich says

    rq@34:

    And LBJ would have saved the entire civil rights movement.

    Probably through a sniper scope from the roof of the Silverdome, amiright Hollywood? Somebody call Akiva Goldsman!

    Vomit.

  37. rq says

    nich
    I really, really loved these two articles comparing Selma, American Sniper, and Boyhood. Includes some stuff on historical accuracy.
    Boyhood, Selma and American Sniper: race meets masculinity on film – part one
    Selma and American Sniper: men depicted in black and white – part two

    And I’m just finding reinforcement of my feeling that, just because Selma doesn’t kiss some white ass and chooses a black point of view to talk about black history (THE HORROR), it’s taking a lot more flak for historical accuracy than any other ‘historical’ movie, ever. I really, really hate that, and while I can’t outright prove it, I would say, yes, it’s white people’s discomfort at being denied the role of Hero (however small, ha) that is making them defensive. I think they call that unconscious bias or something. :P

  39. rq says

    Specifically, from that second link,

    Selma’s international cast and crew placed MLK’s manhood within this type of world blackness and not in relation to American whiteness. This, I am convinced, is largely behind the brouhaha over Selma’s “historical inaccuracies”, which is so hysterically out of proportion, rightwing websites are actually defending the honor of President Lyndon Johnson. As a historian myself, I hardly dismiss LBJ’s role in civil rights history out of hand. I have been oddly fascinated by LBJ since I was a teenager, and I’ve read more books on him than on any other president. (Indeed, this is a stack of Johnson biographies next to my bed, topped by a vase of LBJ’s face.) I’m well aware of discrepancies between certain historical accounts of LBJ and the Selma script, and may have some made different choices myself than DuVerney and British screenwriter Paul Webb.

    But as a trained film-maker, I know Hollywood is not the go to place for factual history. Films are fantasies which must be read. Even still, for all of Maureen Dowd’s angst, DuVernay gets the spirit of LBJ as a simultaneous force for and against civil rights progress pretty much spot on.

    In Selma, both MLK and LBJ must be read as characters who elucidate certain truths about their eras and audiences in 1965 and 2015. As a character in Selma, LBJ performs the role of obdurate-cum-helpful ally, a function most white ally politicians in the 1960s (including LBJ himself much of the time) performed. There is nothing false in Selma about the essence of that. True, LBJ strong-armed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 through Congress. He was also deeply invested in maintaining his own power, and would refer to civil rights legislation as “the n*gg*r bill”, and said, before sending Thurgood Marshall to the US supreme court: “When I appoint a n*gg*r to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a n*gg*r.”

    DuVernay felt no need to portray LBJ as the American negro’s savior; instead, she made a film about a black man’s battle against white supremacy. LBJ’s defense merely meant that Selma was being held to a higher standard for “historical accuracy” than, say, the film Exodus was, with its all-white cast set in ancient Egypt. Since the poll tax, black American citizens have become somewhat used to being held to different and more rigorous standard, even when they are presenting something essentially honest. Fantasies which reinforce white supremacy – ie that all important people in history must have been white, whether they obtained the vote in the American south or ruled over ancient Egypt or are worthy of a three-hour film about their childhood – rarely face any such scrutiny.

  40. nich says

    rq@37:

    I really, really hate that, and while I can’t outright prove it, I would say, yes, it’s white people’s discomfort at being denied the role of Hero (however small, ha) that is making them defensive.

    The anonymous voter from the link @24 pretty much admits that:

    The scenes with LBJ and [FBI director] J. Edgar Hoover conspiring together like two little white weasels bothered me; I thought that was incredibly misleading. And the portrayal of Malcolm X as having an alternative way is ridiculous — he had no alternative. The whole film is kind of a left-wing, modern, black rap version — there’s no white people who have any speaking parts who are favorably depicted, when, in fact, there were white people on the scene, beyond a few ministers, who risked their lives and who died supporting the civil rights efforts

  41. rq says

    nich
    Ha! See, white people are nuanced and shouldn’t be shown one-dimensionally esp. like two little white weasels, but Malcolm X had no alternative – everyone knows that, even with historical articles pointing out his alternative ways! – can’t be having any nuance with that blackness!
    And I’m getting all teary for the absence of white people, so sad, because American exceptionalism and you shall not teach negative aspects of (white) American history. But I’m pretty sure Christian Bale as Moses makes everything okay, that’s a pretty big win for white people.

  42. rq says

    nich

    Yes, most members are white males, but they are not the cast of Deliverance — they had to get into the Academy to begin with, so they’re not cretinous, snaggletoothed hillbillies.

    (That’s a blockquote of a blockquote, from your link.)
    Rephrased: “None of the members have ever said they’re racist or hold racist views, plus they don’t look like racist people, so they’re not, it’s all about merit!”
    As Tony says, somebody is missing the point of unconscious bias and being brought up in subtly-and-unsubtly racist culture.

  43. magistramarla says

    I refused to watch last night because I thought that the awful sniper movie would win most of the awards.
    I was delighted this morning when I read that the movie was snubbed.
    The Theory of Everything and The Imitation Game were the only nominated films that I’ve seen.
    I was pleased that the young actor who played Stephen Hawking won an award. He was excellent in the film.
    I enjoyed The Imitation Game even more and was glad to see that it was given an award.
    My complaint about The Theory of Everything was that it dealt much more with Dr. Hawking’s relationships and not as much with him as a person, a scholar and an author and teacher. It seemed that in many ways it was the typical Hollywood love story with breathless revelations about marital infidelities, divorce and remarriage. I don’t think that I needed to know all of those personal details. I’ve met Dr. Hawking, and he is a fascinating person without all of the tawdry personal details.
    I think that the BBC film about him starring Cumberbatch a few years ago was much more enjoyable. That film did a much better job of balancing his relationships with his achievements.
    Hubby turned the Oscars on last night just when there was an annoying musical number from the Lego movie. We both cringed and he turned it off again. Perhaps we’re getting too old for awards shows?

  44. says

    I was just pleased to see American Sniper get snubbed, for the most part. It won for sound editing, but who cares, really. The semi-literate white-hot redneck rage afterward was delicious, though.

    Even funnier when you remember they pretend to care nothing about the Oscars the rest of the time.

  45. rq says

    I enjoyed this review of the Oscars: Two Oscar shows, one failed vision: Howell

    One was a soul-stirring event where many winners addressed the world outside the Hollywood bubble: Patricia Arquette demanding women’s rights; J.K. Simmons urging us to call our mom (and dad); John Legend and Common moving the audience to tears with a performance of their Selma tune “Glory;” and emphatic speeches afterwards about justice and freedom.

    The other Oscar night, the dominant one, was a shallow, dull and amazingly tone-deaf affair hosted by Neil Patrick Harris, who seemed out of his league and determined to cheapen the Academy Awards at every turn. He really should have been hosting the Razzie Awards instead.

    The Academy continues with its failed strategy of trying to honour great artists while at the same time slipping a banana peel beneath their feet.
    […]

    But it would be wrong to pin the blame for this dud of an Oscars show on Harris alone. The house orchestra was equally insensitive in the way it tried to play off Perry and other winners who spoke of departed loved ones.

    And the choice of Sean Penn to announce and hand out the Best Picture award was the opposite of brilliant. Penn is known for making nasty comments from the stage — remember his shot at Chris Rock a few years back? — but he outdid himself with his racial barb “Who gave this son of a bitch his green card?” when Mexican director Alejandro Iñárritu’s Birdman won the top Oscar. Iñárritu later said he’s a pal of Penn’s and appreciated the joke, but I’ll bet many of the billion-plus people watching didn’t think it was so hilarious.

    It’s apparent from all of this that the Academy is losing more than its audience share, which continues to slip (Sunday’s show ratings hit a four-year low).

    The organization has simply lost its way and also its reason for being, something that would have been apparent before Oscar night if you followed the jaw-dropping “Brutally Honest Oscar Ballot” feature by The Hollywood Reporter. It lists the Oscar picks and reasons for them by fearlessly anonymous voters, many of whom admitted they don’t even bother watching the films they check off.

    One guy said he chose Russian drama Leviathan for Best Foreign Language Film because of the “cool-looking” whale skeleton on the poster. With this calibre of artistic insight, should we wonder why the Academy went with the clever and cynical Hollywood satire Birdman for Best Picture rather than the deep and ennobling heartland life study Boyhood?

    So what was that about all those Academy members choosing films on merit and because they’re good films? Ha, I say.

  46. rq says

    Hmm, the internet ate my comment.
    Just wanted to post this review of the Oscars: Two Oscar shows, one failed vision: Howell, which has a nice recap of Penn and Inarritu’s inside jokes (but just proves that jokes between friends should remain jsut that – jokes between friends – as bringing them to the public stage puts them in a whole new context).
    Also, the last few paragraphs about how movies are picked? Kind of puts the claim that winners are picked on merit to the test.

  47. says

    I might have considered that racism wasn’t a factor in Sema’s snubbing, but Academy voters’ arguments that racism wasn’t involved are proof that racism was involved.

    Dumbasses!

  48. tomh says

    @ #43
    “My complaint about The Theory of Everything was that it dealt much more with Dr. Hawking’s relationships and not as much with him as a person, a scholar and an author and teacher.”

    Well, it was based on his ex-wife’s memoir, so it’s not surprising that relationships play a big part.

  49. says

    Bronze Dog @19:

    I saw Birdman briefly while browsing at Best Buy, but didn’t really get a feel for what it was about from the back. Just to confirm, it’s not about a superhero who decided to become an attorney, right?

    That would be Harvey Birdman.

  50. HolyPinkUnicorn says

    Nobody’s mentioned it yet, but Citizenfour won for best documentary, a rather bold choice in my opinion. This is not a Michael Moore film–who you may remember winning for Bowling for Columbine, and in his acceptance speech condemned the Iraq War, which had begun only a few days prior–but a serious doc about whistle-blower Edward Snowden, who may be arrested or punished in some way if he ever comes back to the States.

    What’s more, it involved journalist Glenn Greenwald (he was onstage next to the director), who a couple years ago was attacking Hollywood over its torture thriller Zero Dark Thirty, which like American Sniper won for best sound editing. (Of course, the big winner that year was Argo, which like Sniper makes you unambiguously take the side of the main characters while either rewriting or totally ignoring the historical context of the situation in the first place.)

    And for all the talk about the Hollywood Left™, they’re not nearly as liberal as some critics claim, as evidenced by Sean Penn’s vile “green card” joke, along with the general whiteness of nominees and the shallowness of the winners (I find that Birdman, an inward-looking story of a once-big star, ending up with best picture to be pretty revealing about awards in general).

  51. steve bruce says

    Although i liked Birdman, I was really disappointed that Boyhood didn’t win Best Picture or Director. Linklater really should have won Best Director, not only for this movie but all those other greatmovies he has been making all these years. He is the most under appreciated director in USA atleast.
    But the award for Citizenfour was a bold and brilliant choice and it almost redeemed the academy.