Robert Wuhl won two Emmy Awards for co-writing the Academy Awards with Billy Crystal in 1990 and 1991. He argues political controversy at the Oscars is no bad thing and looks at where we’ll find it this year:
It’s that time again. The annual office Oscar pool, where you and your co-workers pay x amount of dollars to guess the twenty-four winners of the Academy Awards with the winner taking all. Occasionally there’s a tie. When this happens the colleagues split the cash. However, this year I would like to propose a tie-breaking wrinkle: guess the number of winners who will make some sort of political statement.
It can even be a drinking game because this year it’s not a question of if there will be political speeches but of how many.
Now, I know many people think, “The Oscars are no place for politics.” Personally, as both a proud Academy and audience member, I LOVE THE POLITICS.
The argument that the Oscars is not the place to make a political speech has always made zero sense to me. If one wants to gain attention against what they perceive to be an injustice, would you rather do it in front of a worldwide audience or your local mixologist?
Seriously, wouldn’t you rather hear actors ranting about “injustice” than pulling out a post-it with a laundry list of their team of agents, managers, publicists, sommeliers, etc. Hell, we’re still talking about Kanye and Taylor Swift. Besides, we’re actors. We want a good speech to read. If it’s sincere and passionate, even better.
This is not such a recent phenomenon. For as long as I can remember watching the Oscars, winners have made political statements.
It was none other than Network writer Paddy Chayevsky in 1977 who commented that “winning an Academy Award is not a pivotal moment in history.” He was responding to Vanessa Redgrave after she gave her “Zionist hoodlums” Best Supporting Actress acceptance speech for Julia.
In 1974, a bare-assed streaker protesting the Vietnam War raced across the Oscar stage to everyone’s amusement and surprise. This was not only political, but it then afforded us David Niven’s retort about the man’s obvious “shortcomings.” What gets better than that?
Believing that artists should not compete against other artists, neither George C. Scott nor Woody Allen attended or accepted their awards. And who could forget that in 1978, Marlon Brando had a native-American surrogate refuse his Godfather statuette, shaming Hollywood about their stereotypical treatment of Native Americans. (I wonder what the Japanese-Americans thought about Brando’s performance in Teahouse of the August Moon?)
How many winners will make “a statement” this year? Let’s count ‘em. (Rule #1: Presenters do not count. Only winners.) First, we must separate the nominees into two categories, or what is known in Hollywood as “above the line” (the on-screen talent plus the writer, producer and director) or the “below the line”, (the 9 to 5—often 9 to 5AM—craftsmen and craftswomen). This would include Visual Effects and Sound Mixing where I don’t think the winners will say anything except “thank you” and tell their kids to go to bed.
Makeup and Hairstyling might be the exception. These poor creatures have to stand there with a reassuring frozen smile plastered on their faces, as they listen for hours to actors whining about everything from nannies to newspaper headlines. So a chance for them to actually be heard might be too tempting to pass up.
Next would be the two music categories: Original Song and Original Score. If, as expected, La La Land wins both, the young recipients are going to thank their parents and either their high school drama teacher or Stephen Sondheim for inspiration. However, should “How Far I’ll Go”, from Moana pull an upset, then co-writer Lin-Manuel Miranda of Hamilton fame will have an opportunity to put together a historical hip-hop acceptance speech. Although I’m rooting for L-MM, I’m betting on the LLL guys. So ‘No’ for those two awards.
Next is Short Films and Animated Film. Anyone who makes a short film is looking for money to make a longer one so they probably won’t want to piss off their prospective sponsors and nobody wants to hear political protests from someone who makes cartoons, no matter how subversive they may be.
The Documentary categories are a different animal. You can bet the house on the winner speaking out on immigration, climate change, race relations, the penal system, arts funding, health care, LBGTQ issues, ageism, you name it. And why not? They’re documentary filmmakers! If you have any idea how much time, work, and effort goes into their projects for little or no money you’d understand their passion. Chalk up a big ‘Yes’ for this one.
Best Foreign Film would seem a given for political dynamite, especially if the winner is The Salesman from Iran, seeing as the filmmaker might well not be there to accept. Still, with the others being from Denmark, Sweden, Australian and Germany, I’d say while probable, it’s not a slam dunk. I mean, what is Germany going to say? “You plan to keep your borders closed and your race pure? Very interesting.”
Cinematographers generally take their time thanking their crew, and praising their director’s “vision,” hoping the phone rings tomorrow with their next gig for bigger bucks. Why rock the boat? Besides, who cares what they think? They’re there to light, not talk.
Original Screenplay and Adapted Screenplay are going to yield at least one political speech and most likely two. Lion, about a child returning to his homeland after being driven away, would seem to be a natural. Arrival is about space travel, opening the door for anything and everything. Fences, Hidden Figures and Moonlight illuminate the African-American experience, so this category is a sure ‘Yes’.
Best Director is another story. Damien Chazelle, LaLa Land director would be the youngest winner ever in this category, so I’m sure he’ll be more than happy to make film history and thank Gene Kelly. But, if long shot Mel Gibson wins for Hacksaw Ridge, it’ll not only provide the biggest upset of the night, but might provide a special commentary on redemption. I’m betting ‘No’ on Director.
If Viola Davis does not win Best Supporting Actress, Russian hacking would have spread to the Oscars voting system. I suspect Ms. Davis, one of Hollywood’s most-respected actresses, will thank Fences director and co-star Denzel Washington and writer August Wilson. As far as a protest, it’s more likely that Davis speaks glowingly about her fellow acting nominees than takes down the Supreme Court nominee.
For Supporting Actor, Mahershala Ali seems a prohibitive favorite. He not only gave a memorable performance in Moonlight but it’s also a way to recognize the film considering it could get shut-out in other categories. I’m hoping his acceptance speech is anywhere near the prose he said at his SAG-AFTRA win. If it is, it will be a insightful moment.
Until recently it was assumed that Casey Affleck was a slam-dunk for Best Actor for Manchester by the Sea. But since the historical accounts of him settling out of court for sexual harassment surfaced, it has possibly swung the pendulum away from him. Should he win he would be hardly in a position to speak out against anything. So, he’s a ‘No’. If Denzel Washington wins, he will likely take the moment to praise his Fences cast and crew and probably a more personal message. So, I’m guessing ‘No’ here.
Which brings us to Best Actress. The race seems to be between Isabelle Huppert and Emma Stone. Huppert is a French legend, but Emma Stone is this season’s fresh face, and Hollywood loves a fresh face. So, I’m saying Stone will be the winner. If she is, she’ll gush, cry, and be refreshingly authentic. If she doesn’t win, that inexorably leads us to Meryl Streep…
Finally Best Picture comes at the end of the night, at which time the show is running over. By the time the entire producing team, cast, and creative team hit the stage, the playoff music is about to start. This means even if someone wants to make a speech they won’t be able to.
All in all, I’m guessing six speeches. Enjoy Jimmy Kimmel on Sunday. I know I will.
