I am reading with amusement article like this one about Jada Pinkett Smith. She is threatening to boycott the Oscars because no black actors were nominated for awards. I have several replies to this.
First, I stopped watching the Oscars, or even paying attention to them, because of their obvious politicization. Imaging the Oscars are not politicized is patently foolish. That effect is seen all the time in the choice of films and actors, and many popular films and actors are never recognized just because they aren't making 'cinematic art'. The Golden Globes are a better reflection of how actors feel about the work of other actors, and similarly for other parts of motion picture work. Their nominees, by a rough count, include exactly 3 black performers of any kind, and their nominations list is much longer and differently categorized than for the Oscars. Is there really a substantial difference here between three and none? Embedded within that question is whether there ought to be a 'black slot' in best actor/actress, a 'foreign' slot for directors.
Related to the above is the question of whether race is a criterion for any nomination, any at all. If we are truly race blind, nominations should be made simply for the best acting performances regardless of race, age, religion, etc. That we even have a complaint about a lack of black nominees says that the issue is seen in terms of race rather than quality. There is no Oscar for 'best black actor/actress', none for white actor/actress. The best performances are chosen.
I truly don't see why race should be a criterion for any of this. I made comments about this previously in my blog (see 'Meritocracy' from 9/23, and a reply I received, which I published the following week). The moment we attach race as a criterion in an award for acting it is no longer an acting award but a social engineering project. If some group feels black performers are not adequately recognized, they should create a black motion picture award, with only black nominees, or they should work only for black directors. Spike Lee does his very best in this regard, and is a terrific director.
The difference, as I see it, is that Spike Lee is a terrific director, not a terrific black director. The assignment of roles is a whole different issue, and black actors are often type cast, but then so are white actors. If we insist Othello must be a black actor or singer, to what extent is a moviemaker free to cast parts as he or she sees fit? Typecasting works because it makes money, just as black actors work in white directors' films to earn a living.
If we are truly race blind, there is only one film business, one set of awards, and one criterion to win- excellence, not race.
Ted
First, I stopped watching the Oscars, or even paying attention to them, because of their obvious politicization. Imaging the Oscars are not politicized is patently foolish. That effect is seen all the time in the choice of films and actors, and many popular films and actors are never recognized just because they aren't making 'cinematic art'. The Golden Globes are a better reflection of how actors feel about the work of other actors, and similarly for other parts of motion picture work. Their nominees, by a rough count, include exactly 3 black performers of any kind, and their nominations list is much longer and differently categorized than for the Oscars. Is there really a substantial difference here between three and none? Embedded within that question is whether there ought to be a 'black slot' in best actor/actress, a 'foreign' slot for directors.
Related to the above is the question of whether race is a criterion for any nomination, any at all. If we are truly race blind, nominations should be made simply for the best acting performances regardless of race, age, religion, etc. That we even have a complaint about a lack of black nominees says that the issue is seen in terms of race rather than quality. There is no Oscar for 'best black actor/actress', none for white actor/actress. The best performances are chosen.
I truly don't see why race should be a criterion for any of this. I made comments about this previously in my blog (see 'Meritocracy' from 9/23, and a reply I received, which I published the following week). The moment we attach race as a criterion in an award for acting it is no longer an acting award but a social engineering project. If some group feels black performers are not adequately recognized, they should create a black motion picture award, with only black nominees, or they should work only for black directors. Spike Lee does his very best in this regard, and is a terrific director.
The difference, as I see it, is that Spike Lee is a terrific director, not a terrific black director. The assignment of roles is a whole different issue, and black actors are often type cast, but then so are white actors. If we insist Othello must be a black actor or singer, to what extent is a moviemaker free to cast parts as he or she sees fit? Typecasting works because it makes money, just as black actors work in white directors' films to earn a living.
If we are truly race blind, there is only one film business, one set of awards, and one criterion to win- excellence, not race.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment