Politics at the Oscars
By Olivia Ballantine-Smith
There are many, many things wrong with the new President of the United States’ now temporarily blocked travel ban. Clearly, there is a lot more at stake than just Hollywood.
However, Hollywood is also affected – specifically, Iranian director Asghar Farhadi, whose film The Salesman has been nominated in the Best Foreign-Language Film category.
Farhadi said in a statement to The New York Times that he will not be attending the 2017 Academy Awards on 26th February because of the travel ban, “even if exceptions were to be made for my trip”. He sent a blunt message against “hardliners” and fanaticism, which we can expect to be echoed at the Academy Awards this year.
Hollywood is known for pointedly political speeches. In 1973 Marlon Brando refused to attend the Oscars in protest against the treatment of Native Americans, sending activist Sacheen Littlefeather, a member of the Apache tribe, in his place.
In 2000 John Irving used his speech for winning Best Adapted Screenplay to talk about abortion, and in 2003 Michael Moore attacked President Bush over the invasion of Iraq. Most recently, Meryl Streep used her Golden Globe Lifetime Achievement Award to criticise Trump’s mockery of a disabled reporter – without ever mentioning him by name.
Responses to such politicising are varied. Some maintain that actors are entertainers and should keep politics out of their work. Others believe that celebrities have a duty to use their public image to call attention to political causes or issues they feel strongly about.
Some speeches are more acceptable than others. A director winning an award for a film about climate change would be justified in using his speech to call attention to rising sea levels and deforestation. A director winning for a completely different film should probably not be making the same speech unless he wishes to be accused of paternalism and condescension.
The perception that the rich and famous of the entertainment industry are telling the uneducated masses what to think will not change people’s minds, no matter how many headline-grabbing soundbites they use.
In this case, political speeches may irrevocably tip Hollywood over the brink, finally convincing the public that celebrities are bleeding-heart liberals with no understanding of how the common man lives. Alternatively, they may begin to change the narrative.
The power of Meryl Streep’s speech came not from its politics, but from its empathy. In choosing to acknowledge one person – the disabled reporter Trump decided to make fun of – she brought her speech down to a more human level.
It is much easier to agree with a message of empathy for one person – and subsequently to change one’s behaviour – than it is to agree with a rousing speech about political ideas. This kind of speech does nothing more than make the people who agree with it feel good about themselves.
Farhadi’s refusal to attend the awards “even if” an exception is made is a declaration of empathy. His absence will be far more powerful than his presence. What the Academy Awards need this year are similar acts of empathy from the other nominees.
Yes, most of them are wealthy and privileged, but most of them didn’t start out that way. And even if they did, it does not preclude them from using their art, and their position, to show empathy for those discriminated against as a result of ignorance and intolerance.
This year, the speeches at the Oscars are likely to be more political than ever. But perhaps what we really need is less politics and more empathy. Continued niggling between red and blue will change nothing. What we need, this year, is humanity.
Photograph: Manfred Werner
