 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
There are some other things we might wonder
about. What was it about the role Denzel
Washington played in "Training Day" that earned
him an Oscar? What was he in this film?--a
crooked cop. Over the years, Denzel has played
several roles, portraying powerful characters. Has
he ever played a more powerful and important role
than that of Malcolm X, in the film of the same
name?
The aspect of Halle Berry's performance in
"Monster's Ball" that seems to have gotten the most
attention in the press is her character's sexual affair
with a European male, played by Billy Bob Thornton.
Going back in time, we have Hattie McDaniel
winning in the "best supporting actress" category in
1939 for her role as a servant to Europeans in
"Gone With the Wind." Many years later, Morgan
Freeman would be "Driving Miss Daisy."
Sidney Poitier? Though he won his "best actor"
award for “Lilies of the Field," he is probably better
known for his role as an African being in love with a
European female in "Guess Who's Coming to
Dinner."
Could it be that such films as "Malcolm X,"
"Sounder," "Sankofa," "Daughters of the Dust," and
other movies that were mainly about African people,
couldn't "qualify" for "best picture" Oscars and their
starring actors couldn't "qualify" for "best actor" or
"best actress" precisely because they didn't revolve
around Europeans? Who makes up the Academy
anyway?
Why are some of us sweating whether our actors
are recognized by the Academy? One reason is
basic. We believe that those who exhibit excellence
in their work--whatever it is---ought to get their
props. But aren't we capable of giving props to our
own actors, directors, writers, and so forth in movie
making? Aren't we more qualified than Europeans
to judge how important a particular film is to us, how
powerful the characters are who are portrayed? Or
is it a matter that there are still too many of us who
operate under the belief that any recognition we get
isn't real recognition unless it is recognition by Euro-
peans.
There is another reason why some of us--Africans
in the movie business, in particular--attach great
importance to the Oscars. It's economic. The
phrase, "Oscar-winning," attached to the name of
an African actor, director, or screen-play writer
gives a brother or sister greater marketability and
more leverage in getting industry backing for future
film projects. But though we live in a society where
Europeans have decided that films, plays, music,
books, and other art forms are mainly commercial
enterprises, or entertainment products, we have the
capacity to decide, that, for us, films and other art
forms can and should have primary value as
constructive stimulators of our minds and spirits.
Besides, as much as we, reportedly, go to movies
and rent tapes, we have the economic clout to
support films by us, about us, and in our collective
mental and spiritual interests.
But what's up with this "best" business anyway? At
least hundreds of feature-length films are made in
this country each year. How can a determination be
made that a movie or actor is the best? When Barry
Bonds was declared "home-run king" last year, the
matter was beyond argument. He simply knocked
more balls out of the park than anyone else in
major-league baseball. Case closed. The criteria
were objective. But assessments of movies,
directors, actors, etc. as being the "best" are based
on personal taste, cultural values and biases, and
other factors that figure into people's opinions.
Europeans who run the film industry in this country,
like Europeans here who run other industries, are
comfortable with the idea of being in the driver's
seat (with or without Morgan Freeman) and expect
films to leave them in this seat and not challenge
their "right" to it. They have a set of cultural values
and expect movies to reflect those. They see their
backing of movie projects as commercial
investments and they want to get over like fat rats.
The films that come out of Hollywood, when they
have anything to do with us at all, promote the
continuation of the present situation; namely, that of
Europeans .calling shots and everyone else going
along with the program. They promote our
acceptance of this state of affairs.
We know all this. Right? So why would we expect
the Academy of Motion Pictures to award films by,
for, and about us, and which serve to inspire and/or,
on some level or other, empower us?
We know all this? Wrong. As we can see from such
awards ceremonies as the N.A.A.C.P. Image
Awards, the Essence Awards, and similar
recognition programs, some of us are operating out
of essentially the same value system as the
Europeans we might charge with discriminating
against us when it's time for the movie-related
goodies to be passed out. At last month's
N.A.A.C.P. Image Awards, for example, Denzel
Washington won "Outstanding Actor in a Motion
|
 |
|