FOR LAST night's 75th Academy Awards ceremony, the mantra "the show must go on" rang true -- but barely. The show's organizers found themselves forced to consider the appropriateness of such a production in the first week of war. They allowed the event to proceed as scheduled, though in an altered and abbreviated form. The idea that an appropriate protocol exists during wartime is misguided. The Academy's concessions were both arbitrary and unnecessary. It would have been better to allow them to continue in their traditional fashion.
The Oscars are Hollywood's most glamorous night of the year and the culmination of a year's worth of film production. The event in recent years has been known more for its extravagant costumes and red carpet gossip than the awards themselves. Oscar producers worried that the spectacle would look frivolous and superficial at a time when it would necessarily share airtime with American troops in combat. All last week, Academy officials schemed to produce what they considered an appropriate response to the war.
At least the awards went on. Since their conception, the Academy Awards have been postponed only three times. The 1938 flooding of Los Angeles, the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968 and the 1981 attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan all merited the rescheduling of the event. In 1942, Academy Awards that followed the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the show's organizers banned formal attire and scaled down the ceremony's name to a dinner.
The most obvious alteration for viewers was the omission of the red carpet sequence -- traditionally a widely televised segment that runs for hours with fashion commentary. The official Oscar Web site reported that, "In recognition of the seriousness of the world situation and the possibility of military conflict in the very near future, the Academy has decided to significantly scale down the entire red carpet/arrival component of the event" (www.oscar.com).Fans, who usually crowd bleachers lining the theater entrance, were not allowed to attend this year. Officials reported that anxious celebrities decided to tone down the glamour of their clothing.Perhaps the producers would have preferred if the actors paraded into the auditorium in completely black or even in business attire, as Emmy producers suggested post-Sept. 11. Joan Rivers' famous commentary show was different this year. Producers insisted that she focus her observations less on fashion and interviews and more on Oscar predictions.
Everyone seems to be looking for the appropriate protocol for war. However, there is no entry in Miss Manners that could dictate this topic. Thus, the changes the producers of the show opted for came across as arbitrary and even petty. What is and what is not appropriate in wartime? Apparently, sequins are unpatriotic but perhaps a beaded sheath would have passed the censors. Similarly, it's okay to care about the merits of one's acting abilities but not one's fashion sense. It isn't as if the silk in Nicole Kidman's stockings was needed for an American parachute, as it may have been 50 years ago. The war with Iraq is not asking for a rationing of raw goods for war products right now, but the rationing of public opinion. At this stage, America is obsessed with mobilizing sentiment. But restricting -- for lack of a better word -- fun does nothing for the war effort.
The Oscars are highly representative of America. The United States unquestionably dominates popular culture, and particularly the film industry. The 75th Academy Awards ceremony was be broadcast in over 150 countries around the world, including Iraq. Yet, the entertainment industry has often been criticized for its self-absorption, and last night was an attempt to fight that perception. But the more serious criticism of members of the industry recently has been in using their arena as a platform for politics. Conservative groups feared that the highly publicized awards would be an opportunity for the overwhelmingly liberal Hollywood crowd to spout anti-war rhetoric with no chance for response by their opposition. In fact, Academy officials requested that presenters, whose ranks included politically vocal celebrities such as Susan Sarandon and Richard Gere, restrict their dialogue to the approved scripts. Winners were encouraged to steer clear of political topics in making their acceptance speeches. Yet they failed to apply the same idea when they changed the structure of the event. The film industry occupies the entertainment sphere, and there is no reason for the war to overlap into every aspect of American life.
The language employed in scaling back the awards has been the need to "match the mood of the nation." But the mood projected by these arbitrary changes is just one of vague sobriety. Asceticism in the face of war hardly is tantamount to patriotism. The Awards are over and done, but broader implications for the general American lifestyle loom. The pursuit of pleasure need not grind to a halt. If America must go on, then her show should as well.
(Kimberly Liu's column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at kliu@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | YesterdayStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | YesterdayWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
PARTING SHOT: Asked and answered
By Honor Wood | 2 days agoLooking back, the answer has been abundantly clear all along. I did it for the people.
