The Academy Discords, Featuring Actors Who Think That Their Viewpoints Are Important

discord

a: lack of agreement or harmony (as between persons, things, or ideas)

b. active quarreling or conflict resulting from discord among persons or factions: STRIFE

The above are definitions of the word “discord” in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. And it definitely applies to what I call The Academy Discords, otherwise known as The Academy Awards, the annual self-congratulatory back-slapping, hypocritical event of the motion picture industry that requires losers to appear happy for the winners.

Over the years, the movie industry has been attacked for a lack of diversity, meaning that people of color, who are a fraction of the U.S. population, feel that they are being discriminated against by Hollywood decision makers because more awards and film roles are awarded to Caucasian actors, which to me makes sense because Black and African-Americans are less than 14 percent of the U.S. population, according to the latest census.

Joining the “we are being discriminated crowd,” are women of all colors who argue that the Hollywood moguls give them short shrift in recognizing their talent.

According to recent statistics from Statista, a platform that provides data, insights and facts across 170 industries and 150+ countries, the share of female movie directors in the  U.S. is 14.6%; the share of minority lead actors in movies in the U.S. is 21.6%, and the share of female employees in the motion picture and video industries in the U.S. is 31%.

Whether the above statistics prove discrimination is up for grabs as far as I’m concerned. It may, but also it may mean that producers are just hiring people who they think are best for their projects. And I see nothing wrong if that’s the case.

But one thing is not in dispute: Many Hollywood A-list celebrities use the Academy Awards as a vehicle to let the world know how they feel about political and social situations. And this has been going on for decades. 

When In 1978, Vanessa Redgrave won the supporting actress Oscar for her performance in “Julia,” she was booed by the audience for defending her pro-Palestinian TV documentary during her acceptance speech. She was also burned in effigy outside the theater and was rebuffed when presenter- screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky, a supporter of Israel, who had previously won an Oscar for “Network” said, “Before I get on to the writing awards, there’s a little matter I’d like to tidy up – at least if I expect to live with myself tomorrow morning. I would like to say, personal opinion, of course that I’m sick and tired of people exploiting the Academy Awards [loud applause] for the propagation of their own personal propaganda. I would like to suggest to Miss Redgrave that her winning an Academy Award is not a pivotal moment in history, does not require a proclamation and a simple ‘Thank you’ would’ve sufficed.” The award-winning screenwriter was applauded after his speech. Published reports said that Chayefsky refused to speak to Ms. Redgrave when the actress later approached him.

Perhaps the most famous incident was in 1973, when Marlon Brando declined the Academy Award for Best Actor for his performance in “The Godfather” as a protest against the way Native Americans were portrayed in movies.

“Three days before the 2003 ceremony, the United States invaded Iraq. Despite pleas to delay the awards, the academy went ahead with what became a politics-suffused evening” reported the New York Times in its March 9 edition.

“In the weeks leading up to the ceremony more than 100 performers, including Matt Damon, Jessica Lange, Helen Hunt, George Clooney and Danny Glover, signed a letter urging President George W. Bush not to attack Iraq. The day before, the actors Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins, and the Oscar-nominated director Pedro Almodóvar, were among thousands who marched in Hollywood to protest the war,” reported the Times.

That was also the year, reported the Times, that Michael Moore, an award winner for his documentary “Bowling for Columbine” shouted from the stage, “Shame on you, Mr. Bush!”

There’s an oft-used definition of insanity, which some people attribute to Albert Einstein, which applies to actors who feel that the public cares about their political positions. It goes, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.” It reminds me of all the entertainers who make their support of a candidate known. The voting public doesn’t care. (And neither do I.) Just ask Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, all of whom had the vocal support of bold face show biz folks, if celebrity endorsements helped them win the presidency.

Palestinian proponents who expected Oscar winners to rail against the U.S. for providing arms to the Israelis were disappointed during the 96th edition on March 10, when none of them criticized President Biden for his statements saying that Israel has a right to defend itself against Hamas terrorists and continues to provide arms to Israel. Winner’s speeches, which in previous years were critical of the U.S. positions, were absent, perhaps because so many of the winners were not American citizens.

Surprisingly, the Israeli-Hamas War was mentioned only once. Without criticizing the U.S. position regarding the war, director Jonathan Glazer whose film “”The Zone of Interest,” is about the domestic life of a Nazi commandant whose house is just outside the Auschwitz concentration camp and was deemed the best international feature, said, in part, referring to “the victims of dehumanization,” both in Israel and Gaza: “We stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people.” 

Also, surprisingly, the only overt political moments came during the beginning and end of the telecast. 

During his opening monologue, host Jimmy Kimmel said, “Emma Stone is an Oscar nominee for a fifth time. Right? The fifth time. This is, and she is — Emma, you are, you were so unbelievably great in “Poor Things,”in which Emma played an adult woman with the brain of a child, “like the lady who gave the rebuttal to the State of the Union on Thursday night,” (referring to Sen. Katie Britt ) “And you were just amazing.”

Before the final award presentation Kimmel said he just received a review of the show, reading it off his phone. “Has there EVER been a WORSE HOST than Jimmy Kimmel at the Oscars. His opening was that of a less than average person trying too hard to be something which he is not, and never can be. Get rid of Kimmel and perhaps replace him with another washed up, but cheap, ABC ‘talent,’ George Slopanopoulos. He would make everybody on stage look bigger, stronger and more glamorous. Then Kimmel said, “blah, blah ,blah before reading: MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.OK, now, see if you can guess which former president just posted that on Truth Social. Anyone? No?” Kimmel continued, “Thank you for watching! I’m surprised you’re still awake — isn’t it past your jail time?” 

The adoration of celebrities, which are celebrated during the many TV award shows each year, is not limited to show business personalities. Too many people in our business still believe in the power of a celebrity endorsement. Instead of crafting original, creative programs, they take the easy way out by suggesting a celebrity as a product publicity spokesperson, especially in sports marketing situations.

The result usually is a one line mention that “So and So is a spokesperson for the XYZ Company” and the remainder of an interview is about the celebrity. Missing are the talking points about why consumers should purchase the product. What good that does a client is beyond my reasoning. Its effectiveness in helping a client is the same as actors who believe that their speaking out on political matters or their endorsements of a political candidate matters to the public, when history shows that the results are zilch. 

Of all the actors who have expressed their opinions about political matters over the years the one I have the most respect for is former President Ronald Reagan. No fan of his politics, I voted against him twice. But at least he had the courage of his convictions, and left the Hollywood sound stage for the political stage, unlike the actors who pat themselves on their backs for speaking out. I’ll not hold my breath until one of the actors who feel that they just have to let the world know about their feelings political do the same as Mr. Reagan.

As for discrimination, there’s no doubt that it exists in ours and in all the world’s societies. But just because someone does not get what they want does not mean that they are being discriminated against.

In my view, there are three things that should be considered during the hiring process – knowledge, ability and talent, regardless of a person’s race, gender, ethnicity or skin tone.

And if that makes me unpopular with some people, so be it. I’m not up for an Oscar.