And Now for Something Completely Not Different

 I confess to having a problem with the #OscarsSoWhite movement.  In years past, when it comes to the Academy Awards, the Motion Picture Academy has certainly snubbed any number of worthy performers and other theatrical artists, and, despite the growing diversity of the American population, the most visible Oscar categories (e.g., acting, directing, "Best Picture") have often displayed a conspicuous uniformity in terms of race and ethnicity (i.e., a whole bunch of white folks).  The snubs are often inexplicable, such as Jennifer Lopez being overlooked for her performance in "Hustlers" despite ubiquitous praise and early expectations that she would win the award, never mind being nominated.  And it's this very inexplicability that leaves the Academy open to charges of unconscious (or, indeed, conscious) racism.

Still, whenever the #OscarsSoWhite hashtag would start trending, I would always wonder.  First, while people could certainly take issue with the lack of Black or Brown faces among the nominees, the nominees themselves were generally not objectionable.  That is, one couldn't necessarily point to any of the (white) actors who were nominated and say, "Well, SHE certainly doesn't deserve a nomination. . .  He didn't really do a good job."  With a limited number of nominations (generally five per category), you will always have some deserving people left out.  Second, the fact that people expressed outrage when all the nominees were white could cause a certain backlash if and when more people of color were ultimately nominated: Are they being nominated because of the excellence of their work or is there some Hollywood quota system being employed?

The issue, of course, is not a lack of talent among communities of color, but a lack of opportunities.  And ultimately, one of the good things to come out of #OscarsSoWhite was an attempt to diversify the Academy, to provide more support for films that portray the experiences of communities of color and to broaden the pool of those honored beyond the usual suspects.  And one could argue that last night's Academy Awards represented a sort of triumph for this movement.  Of the 20 acting nominations, nine went to non-white actors.  Of the eight films nominated for Best Picture, only two featured white male protagonists (three if you count the mostly-white ensemble cast of "Trial of the Chicago Seven").  But even here, we see some "snubbing": Eight films were nominated for Best Picture, but up to ten films could have been.  And among the non-nominated pictures were such critically acclaimed and Black-centered movies as "One Night in Miami" (three other nominations), "Da 5 Bloods" (a Spike Lee Joint), and "Ma Rainey's Black Bottom"--probably the most inexplicable oversight, given its prominence on Netflix, its provenance as a somewhat well-known play, and its two lead-acting nominations.  Including any two of these movies wouldn't have entailed bumping any other nominee (all of which seem more or less deserving), yet they were left out.  Why?  (Yes, I'm sure there are arcane rules around voting and nominations and yadda yadda yadda. . . But again, this is as much about perception as anything else.  The perception is problematic.)

And then, of course, despite the diversity of the nominees, the two big acting awards went, surprisingly, to two old white Hollywood veterans--Frances McDormand and Anthony Hopkins--both of whom had won Oscars already (twice in McDormand's case), to boot.

This is a disappointment.

I feel I should stipulate that both Frances McDormand and Anthony Hopkins are brilliant actors--giants in their field.  I haven't seen either "Nomadland" or "The Father," but I have absolutely no doubt that both actors give flawless performances.  This is not about that.  Because let's be clear: The Oscars are not an acting competition.  The awards are not given on the basis of some judgment that Anthony Hopkins gave a better performance in "The Father" than, say, Riz Ahmed did in "Sound of Metal."  How would one make that judgment, exactly?  They performed different roles that called for different skills and preparation.  The only real way that the Oscars could be an acting competition would be if each nominated actor were given, say, a monologue to perform--the same monologue--and then judged on the execution. There would still be a certain level of subjectivity involved, but at least then you'd be comparing apples to apples, so to speak--performing apples to performing apples.

(DIGRESSION: I think we have a premise for next year's ceremony! Mr. Soderbergh, call me! END OF DIGRESSION)

No, to the extent that the Oscars are a competition, they are a marketing competition, the winners a reflection of which studio did the best job of promoting their product.  But quite often, the Oscars are also an opportunity for Hollywood to make a statement.  And in this year Black Lives Matter and white nationalists parading proudly through American streets, the voters of the Motion Picture Academy could have--should have--made a clear statement about the value of diversity in the world of film. A clear statement that the movies can look like the best vision of a multicultural America. Instead, the statement that Hollywood made by bestowing the highest honors on representatives of the status quo is that the Academy is still largely stuck in the past.

*****

I said "surprisingly" about the wins by McDormand and, especially, Hopkins.  The Award ceremony producers clearly expected something different, as evidenced by the otherwise inexplicable decision to announce "Best Picture" before "Best Actress" and "Best Actor."  Presumably, Steven Soderbergh (along with any number of other people) thought Chadwick Boseman would receive a posthumous Oscar.  The announcement of his win would certainly have been a highly emotional moment--not a dry eye in the house--a moment which would have rendered the award for Best Picture anticlimactic, no matter which film won.  But from a television-production perspective, the Oscars got the absolute worst result.  Boseman would have been perfect.  Ahmed or Yeun would have at least been seen as young, exciting avatars of Hollywood's next generation.  Gary Oldman would have at least been there to make a speech!  Instead, the award went to a highly respected previous winner, who wasn't even at the ceremony in any of its 92 locations; word is, he had to be woken up to be told he had won. 

I suppose the one positive to take away from all this is that, in case you were wondering, even the producers of the show do not, in fact, know the winners ahead of time.  Three cheers for integrity?

*****

Can we please, please, PLEEEEEASSE never again do extended introductions of each nominee.  Seriously, I don't need to hear biographical details about each of these people or hear Laura Dern emote over everyone's "bravery" or what have you.  If I want biographical details, well, that's why God gave us Wikipedia.  That's how I know that Carey Mulligan is a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. . . 

. . . OK, maybe I shouldn't rely on Wikipedia, but still! Let's keep the show moving people!  Give us a clip from the movie and get on with it!

Just Letters, Just Sound

Amidst all the uproar over President Obama's utterance of "the N-word" on Marc Maron's podcast, one extremely salient point seems to be getting lost: As Gayle King pointed out on last night's "Nightly Show," the president did not use the n-word; he said it.  This is a more-than academic difference.  It's the difference, for example, between my calling someone a kike and pointing out that the word "kike" is an anti-Jewish slur, used by Nazis, skinheads, and other troglodytes.  Not only is my use of the word not meant to be offensive--it is not offensive.  Period.  It is a word offered to provide explanation, a word separated from its meaning, a signifier divorced from its signified.

Hearing the word--the k-word, the n-word--may certainly provide a jolt, but so would hearing a car backfire.  And the president's use of the word in that context was exactly as offensive as a backfiring car would be.  Which is to say, not at all.

Kind of Makes the Title "Trustee" Ironic

Dave Wilson, a conservative Republican, was recently elected to the Houston Community College Board of Trustees.  He defeated Bruce Austin, a 24-year incumbent, by a mere 26 votes.  Why is this news?  Because Austin and others attribute Wilson's narrow victory to a sneaky campaign strategy: pretending to be black.

The population of the community college district in question is predominantly African-American.  As part of his campaign, Wilson sent out brochures featuring photographs of random black people (which Wilson admits to snatching off the internet) above the caption "Please vote for our friend and neighbor Dave Wilson."  Furthermore, Wilson bragged of an endorsement from "Ron Wilson," identified in small print as a cousin of Dave Wilson--who just happens to share a name with a former (African-American) state representative.

Now, I know I'm supposed to be shocked--Shocked!--by such spurious political shenanigans, but I have to say that I find it hard to see what, precisely, Dave Wilson did wrong.  Look, the guy is a sleazebag: During a campaign for Houston mayor, Wilson sent out homophobic mailers attacking an openly gay candidate.  But calling a politician--even one campaigning for so picayune an office as "community college trustee"--"sleazy" is kind of like calling an investment banker "cutthroat": It's not flattering, but it kind of goes with the territory.  While his mailers "suggested" that he was black, nowhere did Dave Wilson actually state that he was African-American: And if "African-Americanness" was so important to the voters as to be the deciding factor in the election, doesn't it behoove the electorate to make sure that the candidate is, in fact, African-American?  Do Houston voters not have access to Google?

And not for nothing, the man he defeated was a 24-year incumbent!  If he was voted out of office simply for being white, then it suggests either that he was not doing a very good job, and/or that the electorate was just as bigoted and cynical as Dave Wilson himself.  I kind of think they--the voters and Dave Wilson--deserve each other.

Profilin' Bigotry

"Mr. [Mark] O’Mara [a lawyer for George Zimmerman] disputed the notion that Mr. Zimmerman engaged in racial profiling. 'His history was not as a racist,' he said.

He added that if Mr. Zimmerman was black, he likely would never have been charged. 'This became a focus for a civil rights event, which is a wonderful event to have,' he said, 'but they decided George Zimmerman was to blame and to use as a civil rights violation.'”

Well, Mr. O'Mara, you may be right: If George Zimmerman had been black, he may never have been charged with second-degree murder for shooting Trayvon Martin in "self-defense."  And in that sense, Zimmerman is "unlucky" to be white.

 

As unlucky as Zimmerman's whiteness may be, though, it is dwarfed by his good fortune in Trayvon Martin's blackness.  Because let's be honest, Mr. O'Mara, if Trayvon had been white, then Zimmerman would have been arrested immediately, and would right now likely be serving 25-30 years in jail for manslaughter.

Oh, who are we kidding?  If Trayvon had been white, Zimmerman never would have been following him in the first place.

More Musings

I don't care if Paula Deen is a racist!  Anyone who wants to wrap macaroni and cheese in bacon and deep-fry it is OK with me!

Thursday Trendwatch

SAMSUNG (10) has introduced its latest Galaxy Smartphone.  I think I speak for everyone when I say, please stop.  Please.  How can it be time to upgrade again?  What can this phone do that could possibly make it worthwhile for someone to shell out hundreds more dollars for the latest incarnation?  Unless the phone allows me to order a pizza and play "Angry Squids" (or whatever) at the same time that I'm listening to the latest "beats" to "drop" from "Lady" "Gaga," all the while sexually servicing me. . . I'll just stick to my flip phone that does little more than allow me to talk to people.

Despite some early promise, it appears that "smell tests" are poor predictors of incipient ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE (9).  Scientists have found that a diminishing sense of smell may be associated with Alzheimer's, but the association is not strong enough to be predictive. Meanwhile, despite some early promise, it appears that "smell tests" are poor predictors of incipient ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE (9).  Scientists have found that a diminishing sense of smell may be associated with Alzheimer's, but the association is not strong enough to be predictive.  (That joke, unlike most Alzheimer's patients, never gets old.  Sorry.)

SEN. MARCO RUBIO (8) is mentioned often as a potential vice-presidential pick for Mitt Romney.  Bad idea!  In a recent interview, the neophyte senator committed a gaffe of epic proportions, perpetuating the most offensive of ethnic stereotypes when he mentioned that, a mere five years ago, his mother, a proud Latina, worked as a "maid."  Seriously, Marco: Talk about opening la boca and inserting el . . .uh. . .  footo.

A movement to BOYCOTT SPIRIT AIRLINES (7) has been gathering steam on Facebook, since the company refused to refund the $197 airfare of Vietnam vet Jerry Meekins who was ordered by his doctor not to fly as he is dying of esophageal cancer.  Bravo, Spirit!  That's the. . . uh. . . well, spirit!  Who does this Meekins character think he is, anyway, trying to sucker an all-American company like Spirit Airlines?  What, he's tough enough to fight Charlie in 'Nam, but he hasn't got the BALLS--or, at any rate, the esophagus--to take a widdle bitty plane flight?  Pussy!  You go, Spirit!

Sad news from VOGUE MAGAZINE (6).  The editors of all 19 editions (?!?) have agreed to stop running photographs of models who are under the age of 16 or who "appear" to have eating disorders.  Great!  Now what do I have to look forward to every month?  Pictures of fat-ass, size-4 19 year olds?  Thanks a lot, Anna Wintour!

I frankly don't even understand the next item: SARAH PHILLIPS ESPN (5).  From what I can gather, Phillips is a writer who may or may not exist, and who, if she does exist, might be guilty of some sort of crime.  The possibly corporeal writer was definitely fired by ESPN, though.  So, for those of you who thought never to see existential drama at the network that gave you Chris "Boomer" Berman and the Two-Minute Drill. . . well, there you go.

KATE UPTON (4) is. .  . ah, who cares, here's a picture:

In the "news to no one" category comes a report that CNN RATINGS (3) suck.  The only bright spot for the venerable broadcaster is that, when disaster strikes, CNN is often the "go-to" network.  In other words, CNN benefits from cataclysmic news. . . . Can anyone account for CNN's whereabouts when the Fukushima reactor went kerflooey?  Too soon?

LINDA EVANGELISTA (2) is. . . never mind, here's a picture:

(Incidentally, given Vogue's above-mentioned policy eschewing anorexic jailbait, THIS is the kind of atrocity we can look forward to on future covers.  Ugh!)

Finally, KELLY RIPA (1) has ruled out her husband, Mark Consuelos, as a permanent co-host for her "Live with Kelly and Not Regis" show.  Having apparently exhausted every Hollywood resource, Ripa will continue to audition friends and family members--next up, Ripa's periodontist, Dr. Murray Goldstein.  I expect a call to Solipsist Central any day now.

The Brotherhood of the Non-Traveling Pants

We grow weary of underwear scandals. First, Anthony Weiner, now DeShon Marman. Marman, a 20-year-old University of New Mexico student athlete, was arrested yesterday at San Francisco International Airport after refusing a request from a female US Airways flight attendant that he pull his pants up. Marman, whose baggy pants dangled gravity-defyingly from his buttocks, was then asked to leave the plane. He refused, police were called, and Marman was taken into custody.

Now, especially since 9/11, we've all been conditioned to obey the orders of airplane flight crews as if they were Stalinist diktats. Marman should, therefore, simply have complied with the flight attendant's not-particularly-onerous request. In fairness to the young man, he was returning to New Mexico after attending the funeral of a friend, so he was probably not in the best mental state to be approached with what might seem to be an arbitrary and petty request. More troubling than Marman's behavior, though, was the airline's justification.

We assumed baggy pants posed some sort of safety issue, potentially impeding Marman's ability to flee a burning airplane. Under those coditions, though, pants would be the least of one's worries, compared to 100 or so other passengers kicking and clawing to get out. Given Marman's athletic abilities (he plays football at UNM), his baggy pants simply level the wreckage-fleeing playing field.

But safety was not the issue. Marman was ejected for failure to comply with the US Airways dress code (!), which "forbids indecent exposure or inappropriate attire." Give credit to US Airways for shameless candor.

We can sympathize with people offended by the baggy pants look, but, really, the fashion has been with us for some 20 years now. It's hard to believe that Marman's exposure was somehow more "indecent" than that of any number of other US Airways passengers over the last two decades who were not asked to deplane. It is possible, of course, that US Airways has always asked everyone who wears baggy pants to pull them up or get off, but we doubt it. We suspect we would have heard a story like that before, and, indeed, that Mr. Marman himself would then be less likely to flout such a rule. We also cannot help but wonder whether race played a part in the flight attendant's request (we have no specific information about that). A private company may indeed have the "right to refuse service to anyone," but we would hope they are consistent in their reasoning.

In closing, we would like to send a message to DeShon Marman: Sir, we sympathize with your loss. Furthermore, we believe whole-heartedly in your right to free expression. We hope you will not be prosecuted for this minor infraction. Finally, though, we recommend that, in future, you pick your battles carefully and comply with reasonable requests from flight attendants and the like.

Besides, those baggy pants make you look like an idiot.

Solipsistography
"Baggy Pants Lead to Player's Arrest at SF Airport"

Sowing the Seeds of Destruction

The last ten days have made us seriously question our basic humanity. First, Osama bin Laden gets a well-deserved whacking. Today we read about a neo-Nazi leader, Jeff Hall, who was fatally shot by his ten-year-old son. Now, we do feel bad for the kid. As was the case with Bin Laden, though, we can't help but think Hall got just what he deserved. A leader of the National Socialist Movement, Hall devoted his life to the cause of white supremacy, and even claimed he was willing to die for the cause. He was also busily indoctrinating his son--his eventual killer--in his philosophy of hate.

What's that line about reaping the whirlwind?

We understand that taking a certain satisfaction in the ignominious death of another human being, no matter how loathsome, can at best be understood as scahdenfreude (foreign words always make bad things sound so much classier)--some might go so far as to call us tacky or tasteless. But if death is inevitable--which we've been assured it is--and if we are unavoidably forced to experience the deaths of loved ones and decent people on a semi-regular basis, is it so wrong to find relief in the seemingly karmic excision of human tumors from the body politic?

Solipsistography
"Neo-Nazi Father Is Killed; Son, 10, Steeped in Beliefs, Is Accused"

Great Moments in Racism

"Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader, apologized on Saturday for once predicting that Barack Obama could become the country's first black president because he was 'light-skinned' and had 'no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one'" ("Reid Apologizes for Remarks on Obama's Color and Dialect").

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook man." (Sen. Joseph Biden on then-Sen. Barack Obama CNN.com). Biden apologized.

"Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics. . . . Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future" (from the announcement of Barack Obama's winning of the Nobel Peace Prize). Sweden's King Carl XVI Gustaf apologized profusely and sent President Obama a fruit basket.

The Solipsist would also like to apologize for on several occasions calling President Obama "cool," as this was obviously a subconscious reference to the president's skin-color. We will try to refrain from such racist demagoguery in the future.