CINEMA
Burden of the `Oscars'
K. HARIHARAN
|
What makes a film relevant and how do American viewers view themselves post 9/11? A reflection on the Oscar winners of 2005.
|
CLINT EASTWOOD'S "Million Dollar Baby' and Taylor Hackford's "Ray". These two Oscar garners have literally put me in a dilemma as to how to comprehend both the notion of what makes a film relevant and how American viewers view themselves post 9/11. Strangely both these films are about an American space and era that young Americans have hardly experienced and if they have, then they have been informed about these times exclusively by Hollywood films.
Eastwood is back playing "Clean Harry" in his "small-town" niche market, carved by earlier milestones such as "Bridges at Madison County" and "Unforgiven". The big difference he makes, this time, is to have a Black American narrate his story and I am still trying to seek the rationale for this. Hackford tries to reprove himself with the genius of Ray Charles after a disastrous "Proof of Life" in 2000, which deals with the agony of white American males trapped in a clash of civilisations inside the tropical forests of Ecuador
Cliched and predictable
Cinematically these two films were cliché-ridden, predictable and uniquely pro-establishment. Even the slight sense of concern for the black community that we witnessed in earlier films such as "In the Heat of the Night" and "Philadelphia" has evaporated out of these two Oscar harvesters.
"Blacksploitiation" as it is known in some cinema studies circles has portrayed them either as weirdoes as in "Matrix" or as able male supporters in films like "Pelican Brief" or "Driving Miss Daisy" and finally as ridiculous sidekicks, witnessed in "Rush Hour" or even in "Shrek".
"Million Dollar Baby" and "Ray" continue this exploitation but with an eye on the "Oscars" and so timing the release in late 2004 was probably the cleverest thing they could do.
Despite a very high level of academic sensitivity, which one can witness in the various campuses across the U.S., I am still unable to fathom what prohibits the mindset from accepting their demographic diversity in an intelligent manner. Why is the quintessential American a "white Christian male" (sadly, women get sidelined anyway, anywhere) and why are the rest of the "official" American citizens, labelled as "Asian Americans", "Latin Americans", "African Americans". Even the original residents get called "Native Americans". What prevents this assimilation?
It stems from the refusal of a nation to inform itself about its true history while on the other hand conducting/funding a massive investigation into the segregation practices of all other national cultures. This blissfully ignorant state of mind prevails equally in the old colonising powers of Europe too.
I would like to submit here a rather "naïve" observation. If the vanguards of post-modernism managed to evoke a series of studies all over the world into the understanding of the effects and affects of post-colonialism then why was it seen only from the victim's point of view and never from the accountability of the perpetrator's perspective? Why was it the onus of people like Ranajit Guha and Gayatri Spivak to speak about the silenced subaltern when there was no corresponding study made by western scholars to reflect on the state of "post-colonialism" as experienced by the citizens of the "oppressive" first world who have cleverly managed to discard their old "colonial" tag by declaring the subjugated nations and their people "independent"?
About another era: Both films are about a time that young Americans have not experienced. PHOTO: AFP
I am sure such an analysis would have helped a lot of young Americans and Europeans to understand their present predicament instead of asking "Why does the rest of the world hate us?"
Just as post-colonial studies informed us about "our" segregation in terms of caste and community to result in films like Ray's "Sadgati" or Sathyu's "Garm Hawa" or elsewhere in Ousmane Sembane's "Xala" why don't we see a similar concern in any film by Jean Luc Godard reflecting, say on the conditions of Algerians or Moroccans in France?
All about power
Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby" provides total advocacy to boxing quite like the way the National Rifles Association subsidises rifle clubs in American high schools. It's all about brute power. So Charles in Hackford's "Ray" is destined to be another loser like Dunn, the boxing coach since they have no idea what it is to be in "power".
So instead of being concerned about the ignominy of the small town enterprise against the big imperial league, the film bows down to the accolades provided by the tycoons in the boxing rings of Las Vegas and the recording moguls of Hollywood. The films are even strangely "clean" with no foul words or nudity but completely mum about the sleazy practices and exploitation of these true "artists" by the power barons.
Obviously we are not hearing the voice of Maggie Fitzgerald, the poor boxing champ, or Ray, the tormented jazz pianist, but the selfish calls for acceptance made by Eastwood and Hackford to their bosses in the big league where the "Oscar" stands like a totem pole.
Instead of promoting more theatrical screenings, the Oscar now carries the burden of increased DVD rentals and possibly some recognition in film study circles. No wonder that over the past years the Oscar night ratings have been falling rapidly.
Strange surprises
Yet despite their commitment to entertainment and the cash registers there was a strange surprise at the Oscars. The two big commercial successes of 2004 never figured in the big league of winners. Mel Gibson's "Passion of Christ" (some call it "KiIlchrist Part 1") and Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" were both ignored completely at the grand multi-million dollar function. Strangely these two exceptions also glow like some redeeming factors in this narrative.
Is this what the "Oscar" does to cinema and her devotees? Hillary Swank and Eastwood get a second Oscar for a listless film while Jamie Fox walks away with an Oscar for his portrayal of Ray at a ceremony, which is now begging for more audience ratings and has also come under the severest scrutiny by the censor board for the critical and spontaneous expression by its celebrities.
The new moral code of 9/11 has the Oscar telecast on a delayed mode with a sanitised Chris Rock as the anchor.
Now, will Eastwood sing a different song with his next film quite appropriately titled "Dirty Harry II"?
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Magazine
