HOW OSCAR GHETTOIZED POITIER John Podhoretz, N.Y. Post -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- March 26, 2002 -- ON Sunday night, this nation and the world were subjected to 41/2 of the most excruciating hours ever broadcast on television. The 74th Annual Academy Awards program was so excruciating in so many ways that it might be instructive to enumerate them. Excruciatingly self-serious: Tom Cruise, who opened the show, and Kevin Spacey, who appeared somewhere in the middle, both generously offered the American people permission to enjoy themselves despite the losses of Sept. 11. That "America has changed forever so we'd better run this show like it was a funeral" tone pervaded the show. The word "bummer" comes to mind. Oh, and while all the tributes to New York were nice (although dated and unwanted, as though the city were in some kind of post-9/11 coma and needed Hollywood's moral support) couldn't somebody have mentioned the Pentagon and Flight 93? Excruciatingly patronizing: The spin on the evening was that it made history because two black performers won Best Actor and Best Actress on the same night that the first black movie star, Sidney Poitier, received an honorary Oscar. But there was something terribly retrogressive about the way all this was treated. The Oscar show worked overtime to make us think of Denzel Washington, Halle Berry and Poitier not as unique and remarkable talents but rather as tokens. Why were only black actors and actresses given a chance to speak in the three-minute film tribute to Sidney Poitier? Did Poitier's career really have meaning only to black performers? Of course not. His extraordinary dignity and power gave the lie to the racist idea that white audiences could only respond to white performers and white stories. In a magnificent speech that was the highlight of the otherwise-unspeakable ceremony, Poitier himself paid a powerful and modest tribute to the directors, producers and studio heads who made history by casting him in the films that made him a star. They were all white. So is Poitier's wife Joanna. Poitier had two daughters with Joanna, who are therefore both black and white. He is an integrationist not only professionally, but personally. For him to be seen as an inspiration only to black people is to ghettoize an extraordinary man who simply refused to accept the limits of race. Then there was Halle Berry. In an acceptance speech so out-of-control that you worried she might actually have to be carted off the stage in a straitjacket, Berry reduced herself to the status of a "vessel." Berry basically said she was worthy of winning solely because other black actresses hadn't won before her and because "nameless, faceless" women of color everywhere needed a role model. It must therefore have puzzled the TV audience immensely to watch as Berry gave thanks to her mother, to whom the camera cut immediately only to discover that Judith Hawkins Berry is white. Halle Berry is not a representative black woman and not a vessel. She is very much herself, which is how it should be in America. Excruciatingly politicized: The show's opening film montage featured five political figures talking about the movies. One was Laura Bush. The other four? Jerry Brown, the leftoid Democratic weirdo mayor of Oakland. Willie Brown, San Francisco's Democratic mayor. Lani Guinier, the leftist law professor whom Bill Clinton deemed too radically quota-conscious for his administration. And New York's own Al Sharpton, who intends to be a Democratic candidate for president. That's a 4-to-1 Democratic, left-wing tilt. Are people still willing to argue that Hollywood doesn't have a liberal bias? Worse still was a pointed salute during that montage to a little-known 1974 documentary called "Hearts and Minds." At the Oscar ceremony in 1975, producer Bert Schneider read a telegram of thanks from the North Vietnamese government - the same government whose military had just concluded a 12-year war against the United States that led to the deaths of 58,000 young American men. Oscar-show producer Laura Ziskin knows that perfectly well. She could have had the tribute to "Hearts and Minds" eliminated. In my view, she left it in to send some kind of subliminal message to the country about the war on terrorism. Here's a not-so-subliminal message to Laura Ziskin: If you're going to run this show in the future, try not to bore America to death, OK? Then maybe we can talk politics. E-mail: podhoretz@nypost.com
Race for the Oscars By dwelling on skin color, the Academy Awards do blacks a disservice. BY TUNKU VARADARAJAN, OpinionJournal.com Tuesday, March 26, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST The Motion Picture Academy is as much "academy" as the People's Democratic Republic of Korea is "democratic." But on Sunday night, at the Oscars, the academicians were positively Crimson in the way they immersed themselves (and the rest of us) in a single, iron-willed thesis. Race. The Oscars this year were about race from start to finish. Intended as a celebration of race--curious word that, "celebration," as only some, not others, are allowed receipt of ethnic kudos--the occasion was a depressing example of how apparent good-heartedness can be the bitter enemy of good sense. Act I in the Oscars was Whoopi Goldberg, than whom there have been few comperes in history more vulgar. But my irritation with her was not with her apparel or appearance, even though she had taken inordinate care to give visual offense. Instead, it was with her affectation of the role of ethnic outsider. Here was a woman successful beyond every ordinary measure--successful, I'd say, beyond the level of her own abilities--giving the audience some shtick about the world viewed through a black optic. "Can you believe this campaign?" she said, with her trademark chortle. "So much mud has been thrown this year, all the nominees look black." There were other jokes too, in which blackness configured the punch line, inviting the audience to have a guffaw--but one that had better be laced with guilt, for she, Whoopi, was black, and the majority in the audience were white, so God darn it, she wasn't going to let anyone forget this little black-white thing as long as she was on stage. So in a segment on "The Lord of the Rings," she elicited painful laughs with an observation that none of the of the Hobbits were black. And, yes, "Gosford Park" . . . there's scope for a black crack there too: Can you imagine a house full of cooks and butlers and chauffeurs and servants--and none of them were black! (No matter that this was England, before World War I. What's history to Whoopi?) Picture Whoopi on stage, convulsed in a theatrical way by the racial jokes of her own confection, and the mind whirs. Why did she do it? It wasn't harmless; it must have been dreamed up, and rehearsed for days before. Had there been an off-the-cuff remark, I'd have laughed with the rest, but since there's nothing spontaneous about the Oscars--and still less about Whoopi--I can only assume that she was attempting to make a point, using her wit to subvert the smugness of white America, or some such expression that one might find in the editorial columns of The Nation. I, Whoopi, am rich as a golden goose, and still not of you, or with you; I am the pungent reminder of discord, the outsider looking in, then darting out of sight. You can't tame me. I'm a Maroon, I'm Anansi the Spider, I'm Yemaya. Now laugh at my jokes, and never feel peace! =============================== There was more to the racial menu of Oscar night than Whoopi's racial hamming. Take the Oscar for lifetime achievement awarded to Sidney Poitier. Here's a magnificent actor--along with Orson Welles, Charles Laughton, Marlon Brando, Cary Grant, Henry Fonda and Woody Allen--perhaps the finest Hollywood has seen, of any race. Yet at the Oscars, in a film of talking heads paying tribute to Mr. Poitier, we had only black actors--Denzel Washington, Samuel L. Jackson, Danny Glover, Cuba Gooding Jr. and others--describing him as a role model, an inspiration. But surely Mr. Poitier was an inspiration not just to black actors. Could they not have had a selection of white ones too, paying homage to the great old man? I guess not, for that would have ruined the academy's thesis, which was that the time had come for Hollywood--big, bad, white Hollywood--to expiate its racial sins. So a Manichaean presentation of Mr. Poitier's contribution was more useful than a nuanced one, even though a sprinkling of white faces in the tribute might have made the more effective, and noble, point, that Mr. Poitier was the first black man to transcend race in Hollywood. And Mr. Poitier spoke, movingly, uprightly. His face, now stiff and creased with age, is still as handsome as it was "In the Heat of the Night." Yet he too, as if carried away by the current of the academy's thesis, went slightly overboard, describing his success in Hollywood as good not just for Hollywood but also for America, and not just for America but also for the world. That last hyperbole, however, I find excusable; what I did not was the camera's tendency to pan to the face of every black man and woman in the audience--as if one by one--as Mr. Poitier spoke, and after he spoke, and whenever anyone on stage mentioned anything black. I must have seen Samuel L. Jackson's face at least 20 times! I didn't see Michelle Pfeiffer's even once. And I'm not being racist when I say I'd rather have seen more of Ms. Pfeiffer. =============================== In the end, as the celebration of race got to its climax, we were given a historic double: Mr. Washington and Halle Berry. I'm not sure theirs were the best performances of those in contention, but there was a certain irrepressible logic to this finale. The night was scripted as a fairytale, a feel-good affair in which black actors were to get their due at last. And they got their due. Let it be remembered. Yet in singling blackness out for celebration, Hollywood--the academy--did itself, and black actors, a disservice. Once again, it made the point that blacks were different, and apart from the mainstream. One might say that it was a little puzzling--even irritating--that no black actor had won a leading Oscar since Mr. Poitier's in 1963. There is no doubt that racial indifference and even some hostility played a role in that omission. But to think that one cathartic night changes everything, washes away all sins, real or imagined, is folly. The greater folly, however, was to keep the color-coding intact. The academy, it seems, would have blacks be inspirations only to blacks; everyone else is "mainstream," the place blacks arrive once they "transcend barriers." And this folly is not the academy's alone: After all, wasn't Whoopi saying too, I'm not a part of y'all. I'm black. My jokes are black. Ha-ha-ha, suckers!
I seriously doubt it. Even the lefties on this BBS, which leans decidedly left, would easily admit that. In fact, though I'm too lazy to read this thread or research the BBS, I doubt any of them have ever denied it. Whether or not it's relevant to anything is another discussion, I guess.
thanks, dimsie, lynus and manny. great articles, buck. jeff, I don't really think it's your place to advise Timing or myself on how or what or when to post. Timing, I would still genuinely like to read your answer to my question.
yeah, now that you put it that way, I guess you're right. wow, my first run-in with an admin. . . today, chievous becomes a man. jeff, I apologize for incorrectly calling you outside your "place". I do disagree with you, however, about whether or not my posts added anything to the discussion and whether they caused me to look ridiculous. clearly, respectfully, chievous minniefield
Worse still was a pointed salute during that montage to a little-known 1974 documentary called "Hearts and Minds." At the Oscar ceremony in 1975, producer Bert Schneider read a telegram of thanks from the North Vietnamese government - the same government whose military had just concluded a 12-year war against the United States that led to the deaths of 58,000 young American men. Well, that is an interesting way of putting it. DaDa, You may not want to congratulate/use Denzel as your standard. He has repeatedly gone on record in stating the racism within hollywood - pointing to the fact that he could never land a mainstream romantic lead, among other things. I will say that I think that it is more than coincidence that Poitier, Washington, and Berry all got Oscars. I think that, due to the context, the Academy was reaching to show how they have been "changed" by 9-11. I do agree with that first article about having only AA actors speaking to Poitier's influence. Hell, put me on there, I'll take Poitier over just about anyone of any color during the 20th century.
First, I want to start by saying Congrats to everyone who won. And I really tried to stay out of this as long as I could. But here it goes... Berry is a great actress yes, but I agree with the others on here who are tired of hearing "the first African-American/Black to..." Racism and prejudice will never end until we (blacks and whites and anyone else) stop talking about it. Berry, Washington, Poitier were all very proud of their accomplishments and rightly so. And it was a historic night for African-Americans, but to go on about it the way Berry did was a little much. For the record, her white mother encouraged her to be black. She said that that's how people are going to see her so she should see herself that way too (or something to that effect). As far as Oprah being a role model, I think it's great. While you may not like her, she is a great woman who has done wonderful things for black and ALL women. I look up to her in some ways, not just because she is black or a woman but because she did what she wanted to do and became successful. She lives by what I believe in and that is to take control of your own life. Here's a short excerpt from an article about the backstage interviews at the Oscars (I posted it in another thread but felt it was appropriate here). I think it has some real relevence and everyone should at least read it. She wasn't crying any longer, but Best Actress Halle Berry (Monster's Ball) was definitely still breathing deep and gathering herself when she made it backstage. "It's a great night. I never thought it would be possible," Berry said of her historic win--the first ever for a black actress in a lead role. "I am filled with so much pride and joy and gratitude." Also filled with pride and joy was hubby Eric Benét who stood just off to the side of the podium, stargazing--at his wife. Best Actor Denzel Washington (Training Day) was a much more cool customer, even though his win also was historic--he's the first black actor to win two career Oscars and the first black actor to win for a leading role since 1963. He said his prior experience at the Academy Awards (a Best Supporting win for 1990's Glory) helped keep him "very calm" and watching the NCAA basketball tournament until just before his limo arrived. In other words, he was the opposite of Halle. "She doesn't know where she is--she's gone," he said with a laugh. For the record, reporters made more of the black-actor-wins-an-Oscar angle than Washington. He invoked the name of tunesmith Randy Newman more than once (as when he asked whether Newman lost 16 times in a row before winning tonight, was that racism?) and helped a newspaper reporter with the wording on his lede: "Say an actor won." http://entertainment.msn.com/oscars2002/backstage.asp Denzel did not deny his accomplishment or the value of his accomplishment for his race (as he did acknowledge it in his acceptance speech, which I thought was quite good). However, he took it with such class and grace. He is an actor and a very good one at that. The fact that he is black does not make him any better or worse or more or less deserving of this award. He is a person. We are all people. And until more people can take that attitude about it, racism and prejudice will still exist. Kudos to Denzel! And on a side note, the way Berry sounded in her speech really made me think. It seemed that she could have cared less about whether or not she was actually the best of the women nominated or not. She deserved it because of her race (whether or not she meant that is another story, but she gave me a bit of that impression). But whether or not she meant to come across that way is not my question. I am interested to know how you would feel if you received an Oscar or anything in life simply because of your race? And does your race really mean you deserve something more, even if you are not as good? (Have a feeling this thread will only get longer)
Just messing with you, sorry if you took it as a serious offense. I did not think I was really going to enlighten you, because you treated the infraction correctly the second time you used it. "Whether or not" is to what I was referring. "Whether" implies opposite comparison - "or not" - internally, it is redundant to type out "or not." Again, just trying to be silly. I thought you might like it because of your profession. Sorry for the lack of proper judgement.
rimmy: You know that you can always be pretentious with good, ole Crazy Manny! Hell, I look forward to a pretentious post per prodigious passionate person pandering to a possible premier prick per se in poor ole MR!
hey, rimbaud. first off, my bad on not catching your playfulness. the recent contentiousness of this thread had me on the defensive. anyway, I make grammatical errors all the time. I actually did know about the "whether" rule. I learned it as an undergraduate Journalism major. but, like the "ending a sentence with a preposition" rule, I sometimes feel up to following it and sometimes don't, as was evidenced, I suppose, by my improper usage followed by my proper usage in the sentence you were calling me on. being a Journalism major actually screwed me up grammatically. they teach you a lot of rules in Journalism that are the exact opposite of the standard rules of English grammar. the Journalism rules are intended to help writers save space when copy room is low. so I'm constantly mixing my English rules with my Journalism rules. that's actually why I take the time to get into arguments about irony and why I wanted to get your clarification. I have learned that I often make mistakes without realizing it, and it's in my best interest professionally to get to the bottom of these types of things. anyway, as to your initial assumption about me enjoying the grammatical wedgie because of my profession, you were correct. I only needed to correctly ascertain the tone and intent of the grammatical wedgie. now I know, and knowing is half the battle. so, was someone saying something about halle berry or racism or somesuch?
