Politics at the Oscars deserves a Razzie
Protest! robbed!
The Oscar for most outstanding performance should have gone to Vladimir Putin, for it could only have been the Russians who hacked the Academy Awards ceremony, switching envelopes so that the left’s most extravagant night was thrown into chaos. There seems no other explanation, since even Hollywood’s most creative minds – if there are any left – couldn’t script a more drama-filled ending to this year’s gala event.
First the election. Now the Oscars. Makes you wonder if Putin was exerting mind control on the Atlanta Falcons as they gave away the Super Bowl.
Russians aside, there were lots of salient points to emerge from the Oscars, most of which are being missed. Consider:
1) While the entertainment fawns over winner Viola Davis for her “heartfelt” and “earth-shaking” speech, the rest of America was left wondering what planet she inhabits. “I became an artist and thank God I did, because we are the only profession that celebrates what it means to live a life.” Oh. Guess that means the rest of us can just die now, since we have no idea how to “live a life.” Which, therefore, must mean Protest! He was industry that teachers don’t teach our students – indeed our future – how to learn. Parents don’t guide their children. Coaches don’t inspire players to go the extra mile. Police don’t instruct on right and wrong. Donors don’t save lives. Mentors don’t motivate. Doctors don’t heal. And clergy don’t impart the wisdom that there are greater things in this world than just ourselves. Got it. Too bad Davis went off the deep end, because she said some otherwise poignant things. But Hollywood-itis got the best of her. And it’s exactly that kind of aloofness that makes actors’ off-screen comments of such little value.
2) There were the requisite political jokes from host Jimmy Kimmel (a few of which were actually funny), which is fine, since that’s his shtick. But the entertainment industry hasn’t yet learned that people don’t watch the Oscars to see actors take shots at the president, but simply to see who wins. The more that actors politicize things that should not be politicized – no matter what side they bash – the more their credibility diminishes.
3) Ditto for the president, who just couldn’t help himself from blasting the actors who took issue with him. When, if ever, is he going to realize that he is no longer a business mogul or entertainment celebrity, but president of the United States? It is beneath him to respond to everyone who criticizes him, and doing so makes him look weak and unstable – not exactly the image a president needing political capital wants. Criticism from arrogant Hollywood celebs doesn’t merit a reply.
Though kudos to Michael J. Fox, Jodie Foster and George Clooney for having the class to share their political thoughts prior to – and not during – the Oscars. That’s the way it should be.
4) Speaking of acting, it seems we have some “snowflakes” masquerading as hardcore Trump supporters. Snowflakes – the unflattering term for easily-offended, protest-everything, overly-coddled, delicate ego individuals – has normally been reserved for antiTrumpers. However, it would seem they are being matched protest-for-protest by some of the president’s most ardent backers. The right’s most recent dissent was an organized protest of the Oscars – all because there would be a few jokes made at their leader’s expense. Wahwah-wah.
All this talk about protesting for the sake of protesting, and trying to validate your selfworth by how many “likes” your social media post gets from the same 50 people in your red meat crowd, is going nowhere.
Newsflash: Hollywood is liberal. Always has been, and likely always will be. Liberal actors making political statements against non-liberal politicians is, therefore, completely expected.
But given that President Trump is now boycotting the White House Correspondents Dinner, it’s no wonder his supporters follow suit, protesting whenever they’re “offended.” Who said no two snowflakes the same?
5) Finally, we have the biggest issue of Oscar Night – the effects of racism and reverse discrimination on merit.
Mix-up in Best Picture aside, was “Moonlight” truly deserving of its win? Were its artistic merits clearly superior, its actors’ performances head-and-shoulders above the competition? Don’t know. And that’s the problem. The Academy got bullied into become more “diverse,” “inclusive,” and “tolerant.” Translation: Judging on merit has slipped, with some winners now being chosen on the basis of skin color and gender.
And that cheapens it
Now a pall hangs over “Moonlight,” as its cast and crew are left wondering if it really was the best of the best. Or did it etch the win because it was for are everybody. a black-oriented film, with a black Muslim lead actor, a “payback” for the Oscars being “too white” for the last two years? Not a crazy question, since the headline for the film’s Best Supporting Actor wasn’t “Mahershala Ali Wins,” but “First Oscar Awarded To A Black Muslim.”
Conversely, the cast of “La La Land,” whose film was mistakenly named Best Picture instead of “Moonlight,” are undoubtedly questioning if they were snubbed, losing their once-in-alifetime opportunity at perfection due to the Academy’s new “diversity” policy.
And that is precisely why “diversity” policies, no matter how well-intentioned, are cancers, eating away at relationships and killing trust. Rather than uniting people, they rip humans apart, pitting colleagues, neighbors and friends against one other, each side brandishing a cynical eye of disdain.
Another criticism of “Moonlight” is that it only won because it chronicles the life of a black, homosexual drug dealer – themes supposedly near and dear to the Hollywood left. Wrong line of attack. There should be no litmus test on movie themes as a prerequisite for an Oscar. But neither should a film win because of a political message.
Where does this misguided push for “diversity” end? Will we see quotas for how many minority actors must be nominated for awards? Will ethnicity, gender, and sexual preference also be considered? And what goes around comes around, because if an award can be given on the basis of race, reverse discrimination will surely follow.
If Hollywood wants to live happily ever after, it needs to stop living in a fairy tale.