Oscars, in the time of COVID-19

Sunday night marked the 93rd Academy Awards.  The ceremony was definitely impacted by the ongoing pandemic in more ways than one.  The location had changed from the traditional Dolby Theater in Hollywood to the Los Angeles Union Station.  A much smaller gathering of those nominated filled the limited space that they had, separated at tables by groups.  There were other "hubs" for Oscar nominees at theaters in locations like London for other nominees to be able to virtually appear from.  Still, several nominees were not able or comfortable attending at any location.

The production of the ceremony was likewise off.  They showed very few clips of the films that were nominated; those that were shown seemed random and sporadic.  There was no live orchestra, just QuestLove serving as DJ.  That meant no live scores, no live performance of the songs nominated, no live performance for the in memoriam montage.  

For the third year, the show had no single host, just a passing of the baton from presenter to presenter.  This was particularly noticeable with the poorly conceived "name that tune" bit asking if songs had won the award, were nominated, or were neither.  Given how little the ceremony ran over time this year, had they cut the "name that tune" bit, it would have landed right on time.

Most curious, the order of the ceremony was completely upended.  Best Director, which is usually awarded closely before Best Picture at the end, was awarded first.  Best Picture was not the last category awarded, but rather followed by the acting awards.  Even there, they forwent the tradition of last year's best actress giving the Best Actor award and vice versa.  This year, the previous winner in each category gave the award for that category.

This last bit seems to have garnered the most attention and controversy.  It seems to many that they were building to the Best Actor award as the finale, expecting a posthumous award to Chadwick Boseman for Ma Rainey's Black Bottom.  Instead, Anthony Hopkins was awarded for The Father. Hopkins had not attended. He had asked to stream in from his home but was denied.  So, the Academy accepted the award on his behalf, causing the ceremony to close with a whimper. 

I can’t subscribe to the rumor that the choice was deliberate, in the expectation of the posthumous award.  For one, there have been posthumous awards in the past and ones that have come so closely to the actor’s death that the impact was still being felt.  Heath Ledger’s posthumous award comes to mind.  And in those instances, the order of the proceedings was not altered. 

The rumor I have heard and lend more credence to, is that Joaquin Phoenix was running late. In an ordinary ceremony, he would have presented the award for Best Actress.  With him running late and not being present, they would have delayed both the best actor categories, as they usually go in pairs. This would explain the seemingly rushed Rita Moreno presenting Best Picture early and the visibly uncomfortable Phoenix who completely eschewed the format that had been established for presenting. 

A stage manager issue, as opposed to a producer issue. 

The result made the Oscars incredibly underwhelming. The lack of real surprises , the unconventional format, the weird structure issues, all made the broadcast land with a thud in a way that it has not done so before. 

The viewership numbers were not a surprise. The ceremony dropped below 10 million people for the first time in a long time, with viewership down 57% from the past year. This has led some conservative commentators to claim a Hollywood backlash finally paying off. As if America was finally done with Hollywood once and for all. 

The reality is a lot more mundane.  Despite this years films being largely more accessible to the general public through early access video on demand and streaming platforms, the individual films nominated were not that well known.  Unless you were following the award seasons and buzz, it is very likely the average American would jot have heard of any of the nominated films, much less have seen them. 

It’s a problem that has been plaguing the Oscars for years. Gone are the days when blockbuster films like Rocky or Star Wars are nominated for Best Picture. The films of today are still largely niche films primarily released in the late fall and early winter.  Oscar bait films. Until that changes, viewership of the ceremony will also remain a niche event. 

I still wish they’d just embrace it. Lean into the niche aspect of it and make it a true celebration of Hollywood and film. Bring back a host that makes it an even longer and grander celebration. Own what it is. 

Or at least do something interesting and make the Muppets the hosts, complete with running commentary by Statler and Waldorf. 

Whatever it is, next years ceremony just can’t be this dull. 

The Best Men Can Be

Gillette released a new ad this week entitled "We Believe."  In the ad, they seek to challenge the image of masculinity that the company one promoted by calling out and exposing toxic masculinity.  Particularly in this post #MeToo era. The ad calls for men everywhere to step up, to be protectors, to be heroes, to be role models.  It ends with a change in Gillette's old slogan from "The Best A Man Can Get" to the new "The Best Men Can Be."

“Boys will be boys”? Isn’t it time we stopped excusing bad behavior? Re-think and take action by joining us at https://t.co/giHuGDEvlT. #TheBestMenCanBe pic.twitter.com/hhBL1XjFVo

— Gillette (@Gillette) January 14, 2019

It's a good ad. Actually, it's a great ad.  It goes to the core of the image Gillette previously presented and makes it relevant and inspiring for our time.

And apparently for some, that's a bad thing.

Hundreds of comments and replies to the Twitter post above and to the YouTube video that debuted the ad are decrying it, criticizing the tone of the ad, missing the point completely, accusing it of being an example of the worst forms of feminism, somehow.

As one comment put it,
"Gillette: *showing a video about how men can and should be better*

[large population of] men: *actively proving them right*"

For example:

And that is just a sample of the 128,659 comments on the YouTube video.  154,000 likes compared to 470,000 dislikes.

Are we that fragile as men that something like this offends us instead of inspiring us?  Are our egos that sensitive?  Or is it paranoia?

It's this kind of response that proves toxic masculinity.  Toxic masculinity refers to norms of accepted behaviors among men that are portrayed as good and natural but are, in reality, physically, socially, and psychologically damaging.  It's not just being male or masculine.  It's when masculinity requires one to be dominating, violent, sexually aggressive, self-reliant to the point of absurdity.  It's the kind of masculinity that hides and buries all feelings, that refuses to ask for help, that cannot show weakness of any kind.  That cannot be seen as "soft" or "feminine" in any form.  Cannot be nuturing.  Cannot be protective.  Cannot be caring.  Cannot emote publicly.  And its the kind that says that anyone who does not conform is not a "real" man.  The kind of masculinity that has messed us up since the dawn of time.

It's the kind of masculinity and thinking that says I "help out" with my kids instead of parent.  That I have "babysitting duty" instead of it being a natural part of the expectation of my experience as a father.  That acts as if a husband or a father doing laundry, housework, dishes, or cooking is somehow unique.  That my wife was "lucky," instead of those tasks being something that any functional human adult should be doing.

We can do better.  We should do and expect better.  Be the best we can be.

Because if the response to this ad is any indication - we have a long way to go.

Yes, Virginia, We Still Believe in a Male Santa Claus

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."

Another of the Christmas controversies this year has been the uproar over a report on a survey that seemed to indicate people wanted a gender-neutral Santa Claus.  The study from a company called GraphicSprings, got the input of 400 people from the United States and United Kingdom for suggestions on how to modernize St. Nick.  They then used those results to poll 4,000 people on how they would envision the jolly elf.   It was then reported that the results showed 19 percent of people in the United States believe the Man with the Bag should be identified as gender neutral, more than 10 percent indicating he should be female.  Eighteen percent want the Fat Man to be wearing skinny jeans.  From there, respondents indicated their preference on his appearance, his method of transportation, and his other accessories.

And of course, predictably, the internet lost its mind.  It became the latest clickbait controversy and took off like wildfire.

Unsurprisingly, the "study" that supports these findings is junk.

To begin with, the study was conducted by a biased company.  GraphicSpring is a graphics company, primarily in logo design, who was looking specifically to change the image of Santa Claus.  They were going into the survey with the purpose of generating a newsworthy item, to draw attention to their company.  The survey was designed to highlight items that are polarizing in the "culture wars" - the outraged outcome was exactly the intent.  After all, look at the reporting.  No one is reporting that 70.79 percent of respondents believe that Santa Claus should be male or the other 60-70 percent populations that voted for no changes in any other category.  The news items focus on the 19% that supposedly want a radical change; a change that would be controversial.  It's a tactic designed to focus you to the controversial, to make you pick a side.

It's the same tactic used in news stories that proclaim that feminists want to end Father's Day or that men giving women CPR is sexual assault.  Real "fake" news; the kind designed to elicit a certain guaranteed response.

It should also be noted that participants did not come up with the idea to make Santa gender neutral themselves.  They were not asked the open question of "what would you do to modernize Santa?."  They were fed gender neutral as one possible answer.  A tactic that real studies avoid.

There's also an issue on the reporting of their numbers.  They indicated 4,000 people participated in the polling.  If you look, it appears that four sets of approximately 1,000 people participated on each of the sections of topics.  That could be 4,000 total unique individuals from the combined search sections, or some much smaller population just over 1,000 people accounted for four times.  They have not provided any transparency into the process. Likewise, we know no demographics, just that they are from the Untied States and the United Kingdom and between 18 and 65 years of age.  That could be a mix of all 18 year olds with one 65 year old.  It could also mean that they were all 20 years old, or all 60 years old.  We have no gender demographics, nor identity demographics.  We have no geographic breakdown.  There's a complete lack of the supporting information that would allow us to determine if this type of study was representative of a larger population.

And even still, even through that skewed process, the vast majority of voters still selected the attributes that would hew closest to a traditional Santa Claus.

A tempest wrapped in tinsel.

So, Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus, and he will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.

Baby, It's Cold Outside

One of the more repetitive themes of this Christmas has been the controversy surrounding the song Baby It's Cold Outside, particularly picking up after Cleveland radio station WDOK banned the song from the airwaves this year.  Canada's CBC Radio also followed in the ban.  In the couple of weeks since the ban was initiated, much has been written and ranted about, seeing this as part of the "War on Christmas" or an overreach by the "feminist/#MeToo movement."

The song as originally written by Frank Loesser in 1944 as a duet for he and his wife as a party trick, often used to signify to guests that it was time to leave.  On the printed score, the lyrics are written for two parties, a "Mouse" and a "Wolf", not specifying the gender of either party.  The song went on to be included in the Esther Williams film Neptune's Daughter, for which it won the Oscar in 1949 as Best Original Song.

It's an odd song for Christmas for a couple of reasons.  First, it's not really a Christmas song, but a winter song.  It has nothing to do with Christmas and has no mention of any of the celebrations.  Further, the song's premier in Neptune's Daughter did not even have any connection to winter in the context of the scene.  The only indications we have for winter are lyrics that indicate that it is cold outside and there's a blizzard.  The song could really be performed from November through February with no problem.  It's just developed a connection to Christmas through various Christmas albums. 

Secondly, the song has an interesting history, as it virtually dropped off the map from the 1972 until 1990.  The song had a strong resurgence post-2003 thanks to the movie Elf and the duet between Zoe Deschanel and Leon Redbone/Will Farrell.  Without that boost, we may not even be having this discussion today.

The beauty (and current concern) of the song lies in the flexibility of the lyrics, which enables it to present a few different scenarios.  It can definitely been heard as a willing Mouse looking to overcome societal expectation and enjoy a wonderful consensual night of fun with the Wolf.  It can also be heard to represent a pushy/persistent/determined Wolf breaking through any resistance the Mouse can offer.

If you look at the first version the public heard and saw in Neptune's Daughter (my favorite), it becomes easy to see how it can be interpreted both ways. When it is performed with a female "Mouse" and a male "Wolf" (Esther Williams and Ricardo Montalban), the song is understood as supporters believe. Williams clearly wants to stay.  "I wish I knew how to break the spell.  I ought to say no, no, no sir.  At least I'm going to say that I tried."  These lyrics in particular convey the struggle between societal expectation and inward desire.  Montalban is trying to give her every justification to do so, reaching for the most ludicrous of pretenses, as they are singing the song in the middle of summer.  It's cold outside indeed.

Neptune's Daughter then cleverly reverses the genders in the song, with a a male "Mouse" and female "Wolf" (Red Skelton and Betty Garrett).  In this scenario, Skelton is clearly trying everything to leave and Garrett is doing everything in her power to make him stay. Though it's played for comedy, the same words are used to convey both meanings effectively. 

Beyond the overall effect presented in this second scenario, there are two large problem stanzas for modern audiences that are continually raised.  First, there is the "what's in this drink" line.  This is one where context is important.  "What's in this drink" is a old movie line from the 1930s that means "I'm telling the truth."  It's used as a gag, where the person will do something out of the ordinary from their expected character and blame it on the drink.  The joke is that there is usually nothing in the drink.  The second stanza of contention is "The answer is no" line. Again a product of its time but nonetheless a big problem in the "verbal affirmative yes" culture.

And therein likely lies the biggest problem the song faces.  Without an understanding of history and culture, the song will likely be viewed as more and more of a problem.  Without the people who can spot the references and understand them, it will likely just be seen as that date-rapey song, as I've seen so often in comments. 

While you can, do yourself a favor and check out Neptune's Daughter.  And if the song's a favorite, continue to give it a listen.