There are just a few years that will always be remembered in Oscar history, either because one film so thoroughly dominated those awards, or because another film didn’t. Gone with the Wind was the kind of film that Oscar seemed to be made for. That film swept the Oscars 75 years ago.
In many ways, Gone with the Wind is such a great film. The central role of Scarlett is the kind we just don’t see anymore — such a richly drawn character with vibrancy, a complicated woman who is both good and bad, but mostly bad. Women are never at the heart of historical epics anymore. We have Sandra Bullock in Gravity now, and despite how nice and likable she is, her mere presence in the film at all seems controversial, can you imagine today’s audiences trying to make sense of Scarlett?
What we remember about Gone with the Wind was that it starred the unequivocal Vivien Leigh. Clark Gable as Rhett. Hattie McDaniel as Mammy. We remember the famous story to find the perfect Scarlett — how many actresses auditioned for the role and failed, and how one English actress managed to nail it. Leigh would later revive the role, of sorts to play a fading southern belle in A Streetcar Named Desire. Those two performances remain among the best ever.
What isn’t surprising about Gone with the Wind is how long it has retained its glory. The film firmly holds its place in early Oscar history, having won ten (8 competitive, 2 honorary) as one of the first films to really sweep. It set the bar high for what an Oscar Best Picture is supposed to attain and in many ways iemains the gold standard. Big box office, epic sweep, love story, beloved American treasure. It handily won despite the protestations of the black community against the film’s depiction of slavery — Carlton Moss wrote “An Open Letter to Mr Selznick” after the film’s release:
Whereas “The Birth of a Nation was a frontal attack on American history and the Negro people, “Gone with the Wind,” arriving twenty years later, is a rear attack on same. Sugar-smeared and blurred by a boresome Hollywood love story and under the guise of presenting the South as it is in the “eyes of Southerners,” the message of GWTW emerges in its final entity as a nostalgic plea for sympathy for a still living cause of Southern reaction. The Civil War is by no means ended in the South, Mr. Selznick. It lives on and will live on until the Negro people are completely free.”
What is surprising about that? This same debate was still being waged in 2011 when The Help was up for the Oscar. The same people paid the price — Hattie McDaniel in 1939 by the black community and Viola Davis in 2011 by both the white and the black community. Dissed for playing a maid all of these decades later. McDaniel, who was segregated by the Oscar producers to sit way in the back of the room, was quoted as saying she would rather play a maid and make $700 a week than be one and make $7 a day.
Although Hattie McDaniel won an Oscar in 1939, becoming the first African American female to do so, it wouldn’t be until 1990, 51 years later, than another black female would win in that category. 51 years. To date, only once in 85 years of Oscar history has a black woman won in the lead category. That was Halle Berry in 2001 for Monster’s Ball.
What was remarkable about 1939 was the surge of protest by the black community against Gone with the Wind juxtaposed against its success at the Oscars, in popular culture, and in film history. Their voices of dissent were not only dismissed outright by the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences but remains mostly hushed even now. 75 years later. Gone with the Wind is still considered one of the greatest Oscar winners of all time.
Only Ben Hur, Titanic and Return of the King have won more Oscars than Gone with the Wind if you factor in their honorary Oscars. 1939 mostly said the Oscars align themselves with the money, as Gone with the Wind shattered the box office at the time. They align themselves with their Hollywood products — their stars like Leigh and Gable. McDaniel couldn’t fully enjoy her success since she was being criticized for playing the part, criticized for being happy about having won an Oscar, and criticized for not complaining about the portrayal of blacks in Hollywood films.
And why should she have? All that would have meant to her was that she was out of a job. No, the responsibility ought not to have been on McDaniel to carry the burden of making Hollywood atone for our American past.
Not only would the controversy around Gone with the Wind fail to disturb the Oscar race or Hollywood in the least, it really wouldn’t be until 1962, when the exquisite To Kill a Mockingbird was nominated for Best Picture — but of course did not win. Moreover, in typical Oscar fashion, only the white actors were nominated, none of the black cast. The following year would be the equally exquisite In The Heat of the Night, which would win Best Picture as the first, and maybe only film to win that dealt directly with racial issues.
But it wouldn’t be until last year’s Spielberg film, Lincoln, that the subject of slavery as an American tragedy, would reemerge in the Best Picture race. How many films about World War II, how many films about the Holocaust and yet slavery was only really tackled by the television miniseries Roots.
Poring over the nominees for Best Picture since 1939 is to see an industry and an organization that has, for decades, focused singularly on the white experience, with the odd exception here or there. The subject of race and racism was at the forefront in the 1960s in the Oscar race. It pops up here and there but the Academy’s choice for Best Picture in 1939 remains the only film to win the top prize that depicts slavery at all.
How does one even wrap their minds around such a thing? As far as black filmmakers go, the Academy mostly shut down Spike Lee for being an angry black man, even though he wasn’t saying anything that hadn’t been said in protest in 1939 against Gone with the Wind. Those protestations went ignored. Spike Lee’s own trajectory seemed to shut down opportunities for black filmmakers to get anywhere near the Oscar race until John Singleton finally got nominated for the Boyz in the Hood in 1991. The first black director in 64 years of Hollywood history.
It would be one thing if there hadn’t been black artists working in Hollywood going all the way back to 1939. But there were, there were many trying to break in. But how can you evolve past the color of your own skin in an industry that does nothing but hold you back for that very thing? Only a handful of directors have ever cast black actors to play characters white actors might have played — a black actor must play a inherently black character even if that means Hollywood becomes complicit in perpetuating the stereotype of black men as criminals, as they did in the 1970s with the Dirty Harry movies. It took a black filmmaker to lampoon Hollywood for this, I’m Gonna Git You Sucka, before minds began to change.
Quentin Tarantino has single-handedly appropriated black culture for many of his films, like Jackie Brown, Pulp fiction and Django Unchained, copying and sampling blaxploitation films and rejiggering them to appeal to the honkey faction. Jackie Brown was only nominated for one Oscar — Robert Forster. Django Unchained won two Oscars for Tarantino and Christoph Waltz, but didn’t even nominate its star, Jamie Foxx.
Tarantino’s appropriation of black culture has been deemed hip and funky by the Academy, but they only barely tolerate Steven Spielberg’s more subtle integration. Spielberg is one of the few who really seems to have given a damn over the years, having made The Color Purple which is, to date, among the few films with an all black cast to get nominated for Best Picture. (Spielberg himself was conspicuously absent in the Best Director lineup). The controversy surrounding the film, as usual, did nothing but hurt black actors, as they became loaded guns in and of themselves. No one would ever want to have happen to them what happened to Spielberg that year. Eleven nominations, zero wins. This is somehow regarded as a failure because it wasn’t politically correct enough, despite it being leagues beyond what Gone with the Wind was.
Spielberg’s Amistad, also rejected. His Lincoln would be criticized for only telling the story of the 13th amendment from the white character’s point of view. But Lincoln was still, to date, the only film about slavery to get anywhere near Best Picture since Gone with the Wind.
That brings us to this year. Steve McQueen’s 12 Years a Slave is the long awaited rebuttal to Gone with the Wind. Because of the near universal support of critics (who themselves have often been as bad as the industry in not recognizing work by African American filmmakers), because of McQueen’s established reputation as a daring new filmmaking voice, the Academy has swept up in the acclaim and given the film 9 nominations, trailing the two leaders — Gravity and American Hustle. Well, some things will never change about Hollywood — not even 75 years later. They still love to huddle up against their pretty white movie stars.
12 Years a Slave is being heralded as potentially the Best Picture winner but its director, Steve McQueen, is supposedly not winning because they’ll want to split the vote. While Alfonso Cuaron’s own win would be historic in that he would be the first Mexican to win the directing prize, there is simply no comparison to the impact McQueen’s win would have on the cultural landscape. Cuaron and his Mexican new wave cohorts do not need doors kicked down for them. They have the industry in the palm of their hands. Black filmmakers, on the other hand, have been systematically shut down and shut out for decades.
The truth is, in the end, few people expect the DGA and the Academy to take this opportunity to make history. They won’t do it because they stubbornly refuse to vote for anything but what they “like.” I’ve been writing about the Academy, the industry and the critics, and I’ve listened to fans and read comments for going on 15 years now. The one thing I know about people: they bristle at the notion of art as correcting politics. Ah, but the Oscars aren’t really about art. They ARE about politics. The stories the critics, the industry and the Academy focus on year after year is a reflection of who they are. The five films they chose for decades define the mindset of the artistic community running Hollywood. Their taste identifies who they are at a given moment in time. Those daring voters of the 1970s? They’re all very old men now. Their tastes, their priorities, what moves them has changed to reflect that. This has to be why in the past few years the only films that can win Best Picture — with the exception of The Hurt Locker, No Country For Old Men and The Departed — whipped up an idealized vision of humanity, one with a tidily happy ending. It’s only gotten worse since 2009. Since then, voters have all but put their head in the sand to avoid having to think about anything to do with the modern world and have instead focused exclusively on the past white American mostly understands, the past that white America can feel proud about.
2010 – The King’s Speech
2011 – The Artist
2012 – Argo
A great white man at the center of the story, one whose failure is overcome by a series of actions that eventually leads to his success, his peers cheering him on and giving him the rewards he richly deserves. Good boy, they seem to say, well done. This narrative reflects the people voting for it, both male and female. We women, you see, need our heroes. We seem to be content with the idea that women exist on the periphery to support the male characters, to give them a much needed boost, to help them towards their goal. Even in The Artist, at the end of the day what was at stake was the career of the central male figure. But we women should be happy for being allowed to participate at all in the male narrative.
In 2013 we have two groundbreaking films that seem to be vying for Best Picture, and a third, American Hustle, that reflects the Academy’s retro sensibilities. We have 12 Years a Slave that reaches back to our past but doesn’t go anywhere near glorifying it. Rather, McQueen’s perspective on slavery in Hollywood is to rip off the flesh down to the bone. It is the first and perhaps the only film about slavery to illustrate the perversity of it being part of our early American economy — slaves help build and run early America. We have museums and White Houses built by them. We honor those structures with little acknowledgment of whose hands built them. African American history in the US is our history yet Hollywood has kept up a high wall that few have managed to climb over.
That Steve McQueen made it to this point, the one of three prominent emerging black directors this year, is practically a miracle in and of itself. There were murmurings throughout the season that “voters didn’t like” the film and “wouldn’t vote” for it. The Butler and Fruitvale Station were shut out completely, as if they didn’t really matter at all. Worse, Harvey Weinstein is being talked about in some circles as having had a failed year because he didn’t get those movies into the Oscar race. They compare him to Megan Ellison who got two of her projects through the gauntlet. Another measure of success should be Weinstein’s for having the balls to back those movies in the first place. Anyone who calls that a failure has their priorities way out of whack.
Change doesn’t come easy. It isn’t the thing we’re inclined to do, especially as we get older. We want things to remain as they are, the old status quo. For that reason I never thought I would be blogging long enough, or living long enough, to see a black director get this close to the Oscar yet here we are.
The story of this year has to be told. This weekend, at the DGA awards, we will find out which director the industry has chosen, which film they identified with and “loved.” And we’ll wait for the next miracle to drop in our laps. Then we will wait and we will wait.
Gone with the wind must be my favorite movie ever. I simply love old movies, the actors where better in my opinion because they didn`t had all this effects that we have now and they had to relay on their talent.
As brilliant as 12 YAS is, to compare to Gone with the Wind a film far more ambitious for it own respective time…is like comparing chalk and cheese. 12 YAS had to be a phenomena in the public domain not just with critics and the well educated type of film goers…who yearn for something of depth, substance, top rated drama…and anyway it was Gone with the Wind that in its themes set the ball rolling,set the precedent for countless decades later films like Color Purple and 12 YAS to follow in. This is why i point out while unquestionably one of the best films this year, 12 YAS is yet to be determined as great by the masses why? it needs to stand the test of time…will the film be talked about referred to in university, film studies, revered in decades to come in film history? compared to by it peers the film that follow suit in style , presentation and executyion? Gone with the Wind at numerous levels raised the bar at both the tradition base of motion picture and aty the SCIENTIFIC level..hence AMPAS the fusion of technical mastery combined with dime a dozen performances…raised the bar in acting and technical prowess in what could arguably be regarded as the ‘push’ that sparked a film revolution across Hollywood…On so many levels Gone with the Wind is far superior to 12 YAS to even suggest a comparison is a insult to GWTW.
People in the public were enthused by the story..it broke records for it time in sales…pple saw it and still do regard it as the quintessential historical drama. And perhaps what really captivated everyone the thing that might well break Slaves chances as potential frontrunner come oscar time, that indeed pple could laugh, cry, be enthralled and thrilled. Gone with the Wind engaged with pples emotional conciousness at sooo many levels…there is depth and multiple dimensions of that depth.
Slave yes is intended to be one dimensional in it emotional portrayal..regardless of the restrictive parameters of the lack of emotional pallete in terms of a spectrum from good feelings audiences feel to sympathy right through to total sorrow and distress for the charaters and what they go through, as some pple have remarked i can see how the lack of engagement at a vast range of emotional levels could isolate a film like this.
As i made clear though Slave is a very worthy contender indeed. But hisotry may yet repeat itself, Gravirty i still hope but by lesser margin after seeing the outstanding brilliance of 12 YAS, but fact of matter is in the radio when Shakespeare upset the apple cart unjustly..radio coverage and news said it was ‘love’ not ‘war’. that triumphed..this year it comes down to ‘epic intrigue and suspense in a realistic form of escapism vs. hard cold, harrowing reality.
So i do predict Gravity,
so is Slave worthy of being compared to or menti9oned in same sentence in gone with the wind…concpetually, yes, thematically absolutely but on the other key fronts that make film great as opposed to just simply brilliant no blood way!
Remember the conditions that were for Martin Scorcese to finally win his Best Director Oscar? Yes, his main competition came from a Mexican director ( who won Cannes for the same nominated movie) and from a white, established, two-time Best Director winner, for directing a japanese language film. This seems to pave the way for O’Russell, since his main competitor are a Mexican and a British black directors. The excuse? He nominated 11 nominated performances in 4 years, earned 3 directing nominations in the same time, and managed to have 2 films in a row with the 4 acting nominations. Why else do you think they gave American Hustle the same number of nominations than Gravity?
It’s an remarkable post for all the online people; they will take benefit from it I am sure.
Not to downplay 12YAS which is a great film, but I have to ask, is the subject of slavery less played on film than films about The Holocaust? I just am perplexed as to what the issue of slavery allegedly not being told enough, well is it really an issue.
I think the beauty of 12YAS is not the slavery aspect of it, it’s that in many ways our perceptions of blacks has not changed. Here we have a story of a well educated black man kidnapped into slavery just because he was black. How different is that to today, when many still see blacks the same way, regardless of their education, job, family unit, etc.? To me the biggest issue with racial issues is that we don’t see enough of contemporary bigotry portrayed. It’s a shame Spike Lee’s fantastic Do the Right Thing didn’t really catapult that subject matter forward. But what happened to Fruitvale Station, which is some ways was a more important film than 12YAS when it comes to issues like racial profiling.
Gravity and 12YAS are both important and fantastic films, and it’s great to see those 2 directors at the head of the list. I think no matter which of the two win, it won’t be a slight on the other. And for me I don’t see an issue with splitting BD and BP, so that both films get the recognition they deserve.
“@Claudiu Dobre: My comment was not intended to be sarcastic.”
OK. Then I disagree, because, unlike Sasha, I believe only artistic considerations should come into play when voting for Best Picture.
@Claudiu Dobre: My comment was not intended to be sarcastic.
While I did criticize the article earlier, I am glad Sasha is one of the few film writers who openly discusses the blatantly racist and sentimental portrayals in GWTW. Having seen the first hour or so of the movie, I can’t really judge, but it seems GWTW reputation is overinflated to the point of being laughable, or even embarassing.
Richard B, If you only saw the first hour of GWTW then you actually saw the “flattering” portrayal of doting slaves. In the last hour you get to see “Prissy” revealed as a lying airhead (played for laughs) and watch Miss Scarlett slap her around. From the actress Butterfly McQueen’s obituary in the LATimes: “It was a role no black performer could relish — a slave, and a dimwitted one who gets slapped by the heroine.” ….filmmakers named McQueen have come a long way in the past 75 years.
In the Heat of the Night is the only BP winner to deal directly with racial issues? What about Driving Miss Daisy? Or Crash?
1. The Wizard of Oz
2. Gone with the Wind
3. Wuthering Heights
4. The Rules of the Game
5. Stagecoach
6. Ninotchka
7. The Women
8. Destry Rides Again
9. Dark Victory
10. In Name Only
11. Intermezzo
12. Only Angels Have Wings
13. The Mikado
14. The Rains Came
15. Bachelor Mother
Provided you were being sarcastic, like I thought…
:)) Well said, Phillipp, well said!…
I think every Academy member should look at his/her nominations and check if they meet the criteria of diversity. So if they think there is a worthy black, female,etc. contender in their category, they should put it on their list and leave another one out.
Hi, There’s no doubt that your web site could possibly be having
internet browser compatibility issues. Whenever I take
a look at your site in Safari, it looks fine however when opening in IE, it’s got some overlapping issues.
I just wanted to provide you with a quick heads up!
Apart from that, wonderful blog!
For me Hattie McDaniel was platying a 3 sss role, slave, servant, stereotype. I admire her for winning the oscar, she was so fiery and original. It was the first black performer who won an oscar in any acting categories. Sidney Poitier won his oscar in Lilies in the field for playing a very (too) nice guy, who helped the white Nuns to build their church. Halle Berry won her oscar in Monster Ball, for playing a waitress falling in love for the wrong man : a white racist. Denzel Washington won one one his oscars for playing a bright thug in Training Day. It is sad to diminish the work of Hattie McDaniel in Gone with the Wing.
Your forgot Sounder, a great film about slavery, nominated for the best pictures in 1972, competing against Cabaret, Delivrance, The Emigrants and the Godfather! Cecily Tyson should have won the best actress for her part. The sequence when she was running in the fields to see her husband is as great of the scene of Anna Magnani running in Open City.
@the Great Dane:
Who ever has the rights to the tv version should be remarketing it now both as a sales DVD or get it shown on TV again just as because of the curiosity factor, especially if 12 Years ends up winning
^^
You know, I’m surprised this hasn’t been brought up at all. But the book is in the Public Domain. Solomon has heirs but they’re not entitled to anything.
Just a fact check:
IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT (1967) was five years after TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD (1962), not “[t]he following year…”
@Ryan Adams
Not pandering does not mean being racially insensitive and/or racist.
[“I take issue with the affirmative action approach to rewarding films.”
Good because nobody is suggesting that.]
If you actually read the above article which is entirely about African American themed movies and black filmmakers, with an ending that prays for the “miracle” that the DGA will reward the black filmmaker this year, I would rethink that statement.
Let me also preface by saying this site is obviously free to campgain for 12YAS as much as it wants, I just think race of the filmmaker really shouldn’t be such a prominent criterion.
John C, “”If you actually read the above article which is entirely about…”” I’m Sasha’s assistant editor so I read everything published on Awards Daily. Before you give me lessons in vocabulary go check the definition of “pander” to figure out why your accusation is a gross insult to Sasha and a smear on the integrity of this site. You imply the article was written for no other reason than to appeal to misguided factions and, worse, your wording insinuates that the author is insincere. Disagree with the article if you want, but Awards Daily panders to no one. Got it? Awards Daily panders to no one.
Sasha, I’m glad you admire Lawrence of Arabia. I love To Kill a Mockingbird, myself. All I’m saying, and you seemed to point it out, is that they could’ve gone with any other movie but went with something that clearly stands the test of time. I just don’t think it’s fair to either film to say why one won and the other lost in the way you’re presenting. As far as I’m concerned they are both great films dealing with heavily important messages and great deals of struggle. Now if something like Singin’ in the Rain or Hello Dolly beat To Kill a Mockingbird…well I don’t know where my head would be.
“Well, I disagree with Lawrence of Arabia is SO MUCH BETTER than To Kill a Mockingbird, though I agree it’s a tough call. I believe Mockingbird is the better of the two. Sorry but I do. But Lawrence of Arabia is not a bad winner so I’ll give you that.”
Awesome, Sasha! I feel exactly the same.
“What bothers me about the chatter regarding Best Director is what seems like the presumption that Alfonso Cuaron’s work is the best of the year. I certainly don’t mean to downplay his great achievements in Gravity. But I fail to see how what he did in that film is clearly superior to Steve McQueen’s achievements in 12 Years a Slave.”
Yup, same here, Pierre!
Here’s how I rank the 1939 movies I’ve seen so far:
1. Gone with the Wind
2. Dark Victory
3. The Wizard of Oz (seems to have not aged so well, even more so than the first two, but it’s great nonetheless)
4. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (last one I really loved; still a very strong year, even based on these 4 alone…)
5. Stagecoach
6. Wuthering Heights
7. Ninotchka
In case anyone is interested, go to Youtube and watch some of the Scarlett O’Hara screen tests. You get to watch actresses like a young Susan Hayward and a young Lana Turner trying their best to nail Scarlett. Lana Turner is particularly…um, melodramatic. The final four contending for the role were Joan Bennett, Jean Arthur, Paulette Goddard, and Vivien Leigh. The Powers That Be had been leaning toward giving the role to Goddard until Leigh swooped in at the 11th hour and knocked everyone out with her screen tests.
SallyinChicago, The Great Dane,
Cool! Thank you for letting me know. If I ever get a chance to see it, as bad as it might be, I will have to do it.
Thank you, Sasha for writing this article. As an African American who loves film and film history, I appreciate your insight and perspective.
To the Glory remark above, it was told from the white lead’s point of view, not the black soldiers. While I like the film, it still feeds into the stereotype of the white protaganist as hero in what should be a black story
I agree with Richard B. I think all this site’s pandering to racial sympathy, though certainly with Sasha Stone’s right, only does a disservice to 12YAS. This site might as well replace the top banner with a picture of Steve McQueen until Oscar night.
John C,
stop “pandering to racial sympathy”?
alright, we’ll try harder to reject racial sympathy and encourage racial insensitivity.
====
Richard B,
“I take issue with the affirmative action approach to rewarding films.”
Good because nobody is suggesting that.
“If 12YAS wins any awards, it should be because the voters thought it was deserving.”
Good, because that’s what we want too.
@Al Robinson:
I read about it a month ago when another Oscar site wrote a small piece about it.
It’s rather shocking that it hasn’t been a bigger part of the conversation that “12 Years a Slave” (by usual standards) is actually a remake, even though it’s not really a remake of the TV movie but a readaption of the novel.
It’s like the earlier filmed version just doesn’t exist. Who ever has the rights to the tv version should be remarketing it now both as a sales DVD or get it shown on TV again just as because of the curiosity factor, especially if 12 Years ends up winning.
As a black man myself, I take issue with the affirmative action approach to rewarding films. If 12YAS wins any awards, it should be because the voters thought it was deserving. Also, I think it’s really naive to believe McQueen winning will help black directors besides him. Look at Bigelow. Change in the industry, if it ever does come, will have to be systemic.
As a black man myself, I take issue with the affirmative action approach to rewarding films. If 12YAS wins any awards, it should be because the voters thought it was deserving. Also, I think it’s really naive to believe McQueen winning will help black directors besides him. Look at Bigelow. Change in the industry, if it ever does come, will have to be systemic.
The same question came up when it was Bigelow’s turn. Y’all’s comments were exactly the same: she should win because hers in the best film. And guess what? When you drill down past the first layer of that observation you will find that the very definitions of what’s “good” and what’s “bad” depends on who you are, what your background is, and what you identify with. It just so happens that we live in a cinema culture where that taste is defined by, reinforced by mostly white males. Therefore, women and filmmakers of color have to not only make a “good” film but they have to make a film that can be defined as good by that specific demographic. Because of that inherent prejudice (similar to having only a jury of white men) it is necessary to point out race when it comes to film awards.
Politics aside, Oscars aside …
I was introduced to GWTW as a child by my Nana. I have sentimental attachment to it. And I have watched it many times over the years. For me, as an entertainment, it is the Best Movie of all-time.
@Al Robinson: Yes, I saw it and turned it off when Solomon was chained and transported. The acting is poor, the dialogue is even worse than the acting….and it stars Avery Brooks.
“Also, being snarky about To Kill a Mockingbird not winning (and omitting that it lost to Lawrence of Arabia) is not the way to back up ones argument.”
+1!!! Well put, Ruth. I hear people complain all the time that a certain film wasn’t nominated or win best picture, best actor yada yada yada. What I then say to them is, “Which movie SHOULD have been taken out so the one you want gets put in? Who gets to be the sacrificial lamb?” We can play the race game all we want. To Kill a Mockingbird is a landmark but so is Lawrence of Arabia. Hindsight is so 20/20 all the time, imagine being in that time period and seeing both of those movies put on the big screen. How do you deny Lawrence of Arabia? And mentioning only white actors got nominated…it really cheapens all that To Kill a Movkingbird has done. If a black actor was nominated from that movie but the movie itself wasn’t nominated for best picture, then the argument would reverse to, “Sure, they throw a nomination to a black man. But they couldn’t stomach a best picture nomination.” Even if a black actor was nominated and didn’t win the argument would change from, “They couldn’t nominate a black actor” to “This nominated actor became one of many who were noticed but were never given the prize.” It’s as if the milestones of yesteryear mean jack shit to us these days. I don’t care that Gone With the Wind was “slavery-lite” and, yeah it sucks Hattie McDaniel sat in the back. But the movie was made, it didn’t have white actors in blak face and…Hattie McDaniel…a black, overweight woman that the academy probably did not find “fuckable” was given an Oscar. Can you imagine the backlash the academy took from any of that? It’s easy to say that 12 Tears blows past Gone With the Wind but just imagine it in the 1930s. Like it or not that year was a huge milestone and a woman like Hattie McDaniel had everything working against her, except the fact she gave a great performance.
Well, I disagree with Lawrence of Arabia is SO MUCH BETTER than To Kill a Mockingbird, though I agree it’s a tough call. I believe Mockingbird is the better of the two. Sorry but I do. But Lawrence of Arabia is not a bad winner so I’ll give you that. At the end of the day, though, THESE voters do not associate themselves or their identity with films about black history or black culture. Full stop.
Great, great piece. I love the mainpage photo of McQueen with the laptop out in the cotton fields – priceless.
I would just add:
1. The ‘mammy’ stereotype as personified by McDaniel has certainly been pernicious (through no fault of McDaniel’s), but the ‘Prissy’ character, played by Butterfly McQueen, was an even deeper source of shame and disgrace for many black women for many years, as recounted by Henry Louis Gates and others. Even now, using her accent to say “I don’t know nuffin bout birthin no babies!” in certain circles is like taunting an Australian with “I heard a dingo ate your baby?”
2. “Spike Lee’s own trajectory seemed to shut down opportunities for black filmmakers to get anywhere near the Oscar race until John Singleton finally got nominated for the Boyz in the Hood in 1991.” I would re-write this sentence this way: “Spike Lee’s trajectory opened up opportunities for black filmmakers, culminating in John Singleton’s nomination for Boyz N Tha Hood in 1991.” When that movie was nominated, WB had just given Spike $30m for Malcolm X (as you know, that wasn’t enough, and he got others to help him, but still) – Spike’s ‘trajectory’ in 1991, the year of Jungle Fever, was up.
3. “It would be one thing if there hadn’t been black artists working in Hollywood going all the way back to 1939. But there were, there were many trying to break in.” AND before. Google Oscar Micheaux. Now there’s an alternate Oscar history.
4. “a black actor must play a inherently black character even if that means Hollywood becomes complicit in perpetuating the stereotype of black men as criminals, as they did in the 1970s with the Dirty Harry movies. It took a black filmmaker to lampoon Hollywood for this, I’m Gonna Git You Sucka, before minds began to change.”
Many of the same filmmakers, movie from the year before: Hollywood Shuffle. You can’t take on Dirty Harry more directly than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUAPTnpOdVM
5. I dubbed these recent films you mention Show People films, for ending in a big show/performance, forgiving/redeeming the lead, and re-writing history. I wrote:
It’s not just that The King’s Speech, The Artist, and Argo are so Show People-y, but that they each star a 40ish-year-old white male hero. It’s not that any of them are bad movies, exactly, it’s that they vanquished better (and more lauded) movies like The Social Network and Lincoln. Like films that flunk the Bechdel Test (which they also do), The King’s Speech, The Artist, and Argo look worse as a group than they did as individuals. And (SPOILERS, SPOILERS) with its Best Ensemble win at the SAG Awards the other night, there’s another Show People film starring another 40-ish white guy threatening the very non Show-y 12 Years a Slave and Gravity, namely American Hustle. Caveats: Like Argo, American Hustle’s climactic performance is less of a “show” and more a bamboozle – in AH’s case, for an audience of one. Also: American Hustle is a lot more like a great film than the director’s previous effort, Silver Linings Playbook. (Though it’s not historical, by dint of SLP’s nominations in all the major categories, it counts as another Show People over-performer.) Should American hustle its way to victory, it’s already the best Best Picture of the decade. Still, can you blame Oscar pundits for tiring of the type? There’s an old saying that twice is a coincidence and three times is a conspiracy. I’m not saying that, but I’m not not saying it either.
Pre-Obama, pre-recession, Oscar voters still gravitated toward slightly more sober, less cheery narratives. Anyone doing a four-movie marathon of the winners from 2004 to 2007 isn’t going to be hugging himself with warm fuzzies. Did the rise of Obama coupled with the trauma of the recession – starting in late 2008, the year Slumdog won – encourage an up-by-the-bootstraps, one-in-a-million kind of narrative? Even Obama himself danced on Ellen before he won the election, enacting (and validating?) the full Show People narrative; in 2000, you never saw George Bush dancing anywhere.
What exactly do the Show People films say about the Oscar voters, and about us? The rise of excess performativity is hardly confined to a few Best Pictures. Some doubted that Americans could really pay consistent attention to four re-treads of American Idol, three different dance shows, two cooking contests, and a partridge in a pear tree. Provided that the partridge gets a big backstory buildup and then, at the end, has to execute moves in some sort of big show. As it turns out, Americans’ appetite for Showing People seems nearly insatiable. As a parent of small children, I can’t help notice one glaring difference between old Sesame Street and now: these days every single opening skit – always – must finish with some sort of song. Saturday Night Live has trended much the same way since the 1970s. Why are we making our leads finish by performing so egregiously for us? Are we turning into Bollywood? Are we seeing a method of redemption that seems achievable, relative to a more John McClane-like triumph-through-fireball-explosions? In a world where young men prefer video games, do Show People films transcend realism-vs.-fantasy debates – that is, no matter how unrealistic the narrative, on some level, that performer did just do that song/dance/bamboozle, and that was at least something? I’m just asking. I want to hear someone else start answering.
The fuller argument is here: http://maptothefuture.com/show-people-films/
Did anyone see this?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088148/
I wonder how it compares with 12 Years a Slave?
“Cuaron and his Mexican new wave cohorts do not need doors kicked down for them.”
So… Cuaron, del Toro, and Gonzalez Inarritu? Who else falls into this category? Not saying you’re not making a point, but there’s hardly an argument in “Black directors have it bad in Hollywood, Latino directors don’t.” Especially considering that while Mexican filmmakers have had some success, Mexican-American filmmakers sure haven’t (Worth noting that McQueen isn’t African-American himself, either… the Academy seemingly will award directors of color from around the world, but only White Americans).
Also, part of me takes issue with the notion that Lincoln is a slavery movie. It’s a movie about the political machinations of White men that just happens to involve slavery conceptually – at least GWTW features slaves as meaningful characters. Though not as good a film as Lincoln and problematic in its own ways, Django Unchained is much more of a “slavery movie” than Lincoln.
If were just “adding” movies about black men fighting back, then why not mention these 2. Granted, they’re not about slavery, but still….
Miracle at St. Anna – 2008
Red Tails – 2012
To me, this 12 Years a Slave-Gone With The Wind connection has been overplayed.
12 Years is primarily from the perspective of a man placed into slavery, whereas Gone With the Wind is about the end of an era, a southern belle watching the Southern way of life disappear.
Also, being snarky about To Kill a Mockingbird not winning (and omitting that it lost to Lawrence of Arabia) is not the way to back up ones argument.
1939 did have a stellar crop of films, it was a strong year.
Not to quibble, but In the Heat of the Night was 5 years after To Kill a Mockingbird, not 1.
Hmm…I don’t think Harvey is crying in his teacups. Both the Butler and Fruitvale made a ton of money….he got his investment back. Sure, he didn’t get a nomination for either of those movies, but what’s more important getting your investment back? or winning an award? Besides, this is what Lee Daniels has to say about winning an award:
http://www.tmz.com/2014/01/21/lee-daniels-the-butler-oscar-snub-video/
From Wikipedia (I know, I know): “Politics (from Greek: politikos, meaning “of, for, or relating to citizens”) is the practice and theory of influencing other people on a civic or individual level.”
As long as you have two people interacting with each other, it’s “about politics”.
So of course that the Oscars “ARE about politics”. No more or no less than any other award or column is.
To come and say that such and such choice is due to politics is disingineous and dismissive. I agree with the last paragraph of Pierre de Plume’s: “In other words, a vote for McQueen denotes political correctness no more than a vote for Cuaron denotes mastery of film craft.”
I know that Sasha seems to hate the word “like” (and I would love to know what her process is, what she calls it and why it seems to be intrinsically superior to the people that “vote on what they like”; I don’t even know what that means), but this being art, all choices ARE subjective.
All bodies have a voice; the Oscars, the guilds, the various critics groups, the bloggers, you, him, her, me. I don’t mind that they differ all the time. Validation is good; diversity is as good, probably better.
The 11 Oscars won by Titanic, Ben Hur and TLOTR were all competitive, not one of them was honorary:
Titanic: 1. Pic, 2. Dir., 3. Cin., 4. Art. Dir., 5. Cos., 6. Sound, 7. Edit., 8. SFX., 9. VFX., 10. Orig. Song, 11. Orig. Score
Ben Hur: 1. Pic., 2. Dir., 3. Lead Actor, 4. Supp. Actor, 5. Art. Dir., 6. Cin., 7. Cos., 8. VFX., 9. Edit., 10. Orig. Score, 11. Sound
TLOTR: 1. Pic., 2. Dir., 3. Adapt. Screenplay, 4. Orig. Score, 5. Orig. Song, 6. VFX., 7. Art. Dir., 8. Cos., 9. Make-up, 10. Sound Mix., 11. Edit.
And Gone with The Wind is an amazing film! The whole point of the film was to show the civil war from the point of view of an innocent Southern Belle. That point of view needs to be told too to understand the whole picture.
I suspect the Academy will not select Gravity but gravitas: 12 Years a Slave will win the Academy Award for best picture. Deservedly so.
Ryan – I know you’re busy, but did you see the link I sent you about 12 Years a Slave?
I didn’t, Pierre de Plume. I’ll go check.
Thank you, Sasha, for raising this important issue.
What bothers me about the chatter regarding Best Director is what seems like the presumption that Alfonso Cuaron’s work is the best of the year. I certainly don’t mean to downplay his great achievements in Gravity. But I fail to see how what he did in that film is clearly superior to Steve McQueen’s achievements in 12 Years a Slave.
Granted, the nature of these 2 achievements is different. Cuaron’s successes are predominantly in the area of using technology to tell a story. McQueen’s achievements are more abstract and emotional in nature. I wouldn’t say that one man’s achievement is better than the other’s.
Upshot: McQueen deserves an Oscar as much as does Cuaron. In other words, a vote for McQueen denotes political correctness no more than a vote for Cuaron denotes mastery of film craft.
In adjusted dollars, GONE WITH THE WIND is still king–by a large measure. I find it so odd that Warners is not re-releasing it this year for its Diamond/75th anniversary. Because of the box-like, standard dimensions of its original presentation it would be perfect for IMAX. even after all the work by Robert Harris on restorations of LAWRENCE, SPARTACUS and MY FAIR LADY, the studios can’t seem to be bothered with theatrical reissues. it’s a shame. they don’t seem able to connect audiences with the past. i often come across people in their 20s, 30s, even 40s who have never seen GONE WITH THE WIND. artistically and culturally it seems unAmerican to me.
GWTW’s victory was also notable since it didn’t just dominate the 1939 Oscars, it also dominated arguably the strongest Best Picture field in history — Wizard Of Oz, Mr. Smith, Ninotchka, Wuthering Heights, Stagecoach are all classics, and even the lesser lights of Of Mice And Men, Dark Victory and Love Affair are all notable.
Sasha, it’s a little too pat to say that “of course” TKAM lost Best Picture given the competition in 1962. It didn’t lose to some nothing movie, it lost to freakin’ Lawrence Of Arabia. I dare say that Mockingbird would’ve won in the large majority of other Oscar years but in 62, it just happened to be up against an even greater classic.
Great article Sasha, this should be required reading for the AMPAS voters.
It’s sad that I too have come to accept all the split chatter because people, be it they supportive of McQueen, or not, are resigned to the fact that AMPAS may still not be ready to honor someone who looks like Steve McQueen. Yes, it would be great to have a non-white director like Cuaron to win if he is selected, but I agree with you, the opportunities for Mexican directors are much more easier than black directors. And I cannot fucking believe that I just typed that at 3pm on Jan 21, 2014!
I personally believe that McQueen and 12YAS will sweep at the BAFTAs and after March 2nd, if the Oscars embarrass 12YAS, I’m done with it. It’ll be the third strike of incredulous Best Pic non-winner errors (Saving Private Ryan-1999, Brokeback Mountain-2006, ?-2014).
Someone’s mentioned a 1980s film Glory, additionally citing that it is another piece “about slavery”.
To me, it is a film tribute to African American bravery for just cause during the Civil War. Not one dealing directly with the subject of slavery itself. (Just saying.)
I can’t believe the best actor race is over… :/
Chiwetel Ejiofor is definitely not winning… :/
I’m still rooting for Lupita, and “12yas” for best picture, but I don’t want get my hopes very high in case I ended up dissapointed as I usually do with Oscars.
Denzel Washington won an Oscar for GLORY …..the 1984 movie ”A Soldiers Story ” was a magnificent movie that explored profound black issues
ugh! *CHYSANTHEMUMS
Gone With The Wind was a big improvement over the atrocious ”Birth of a Nation ” …a movie that really was in the zeitgeist and even had the ear of the President who called it ”Writing History with lightening ”
GLORY was a movie about slavery ..a regiment of black men fighting against the white supremacist Confederacy during the Civil War
GLORY was a movie about slavery ..a regiment of black men fighting against the white supremacist Confederacy during the Civil War
Was not nominated for Best Picture.
I did not read this piece, but just to give some perspective on wait…just because,
1939 Top 10
1. THE RULES OF THE GAME, Jean Renoir
2. STAGECOACH, John Ford
3. THE STORY OF THE LAST CHYSANTEMUM, Kenji Mizoguchi
4. ONLY ANGELS HAVE WINGS, Howard Hawks
5. THE ROARING TWENTIES, Raoul Walsh
6. THE SPY IN BLACK, Michael Powell
7. YOUNG MR. LINCOLN, John Ford
8. THE WIZARD OF OZ, Viktor Fleming
9. DAYBREAK, Marcel Cane
10. NINOTCHKA, Ernst Lubitsch
And as we see, this rly ain’t no flashback. This is right now. 1939, 2013, what’s the difference anyway? The difference could be made on the 2nd of March…
West Side Story also won 10 competitive and 1 honorary.