/ 14 February 2003

Year of the politicised Oscars

Politics, with a capital and a small P, may play a major role in both the choice of Oscar winners and what happens on Oscar night itself in March. Public figures outside the film world are calling on academy members to vote for films they believe have a social message, and critics see this year’s race as increasingly political in nature.The calls to the consciences of voters are being made on behalf of such films as 8 Mile, directed by Curtis Hanson and starring rapper Eminem, and Antwone Fisher, directed by last year’s best-actor winner, Denzel Washington.In a full-page ad in the LA Times, 8 Mile is described as a film that ”sheds light on a vibrant but largely misunderstood aspect of our culture” and asks ”shouldn’t you consider it?”. For Antwone Fisher, a redemptive true story about a young black man who had an abusive childhood and became a sailor, the studio has called on Martin Luther King III and a former United States ambassador to the United Nations, Andrew Young, to urge support from voters. In full-page ads, under the heading ”Antwone Fisher makes a difference”, the main character is described as ”a hero for the forgotten underclass” by Young. The aim is to persuade wavering academy members to vote for films with redeeming social qualities.”I’m sympathetic but I vote for the films that moved me the most,” said one academy member recently, adding that he had already decided to vote for The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers and the Mexican film Y Tu Mamá También. ”There are times when I have voted for political reasons, but it has to be a good movie in the first place.”The possibility of war is another factor that may be weighed both by voters and potential winners. The most obvious victim of the current uncertain mood would seem to be The Quiet American, starring Michael Caine in what has been acclaimed by many critics as his finest performance to date. But the film, directed by Philip Noyce and based on a Graham Greene novel, presents a critical picture of American foreign policy in Vietnam and may alienate some academy voters. Caine did not even receive a best-actor nomination from the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) last week.The shortlist for the actors’ Oscar awards is decided by the 1 311 actors in the academy. They make up the biggest body of voters out of the 5 816 members. The SAG choice, although made by the more than 100 000 SAG members, is usually a fair indication of how the Oscar nominations will shape up.The way that Chicago, a musical set in the Prohibition era, is being tipped as a possible winner could be a result of a desire for a non-controversial choice. ”It’s pure speculation but I feel this may have something to do with people wanting something that smacks of the old-time, harmless Hollywood,” said Peter Rainer, chairman of the National Society of Film Critics. The current anti-war movement has the backing of many actors, some of whom, such as Kim Basinger, Matt Damon, Samuel L Jackson and Susan Sarandon, have films that are eligible this year. ”If Susan Sarandon was nominated for The Banger Sisters, this would definitely be an issue,” said Rainer. The ceremony could come in the midst of military action and it is hard to imagine that it would go unremarked by the winners, whether the comments were in support of, or opposed to, the war.Emanuel Levy, author of All About Oscar, about the history and politics of the Oscars, said of The Quiet American: ”Unfortunately it will not get any major nominations, except for Michael Caine. Political films never do well, whatever they are about.”The politics of the film business have also come into play. Publicists suggest that Caine’s chances have been damaged because he is up against another Miramax potential winner, Daniel Day-Lewis, who is a gang leader in Gangs of New York. Miramax believes Day-Lewis has the better chance and promotes him accordingly. Studios have also caused controversy by pushing some actresses for the best supporting role when they could also have been considered for the best actress role. Julianne Moore is being promoted for best supporting actress in The Hours, while Nicole Kidman is being promoted for best actress as Virginia Woolf, although she has less time on screen than Moore (30 minutes to Moore’s 33.)No clear favourite has yet emerged for best picture, with The Hours, Chicago, Gangs of New York and The Lord of the Rings all contenders.In the past, actors who have taken a political stance have tended to suffer at the Oscars. Jane Fonda was tipped in the 1969 race to win for her role in They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?, but by then she was heavily associated with the anti-Vietnam War and Black Panther movements. This was believed to have damaged her chances and she lost to Maggie Smith in The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie. Two years later, she won for Klute at the height of the Vietnam War and many anticipated she would make a political speech. She just said: ”There’s a lot I could say tonight, but this isn’t the time or the place.”Charlie Chaplin was also a victim of political views at the time. He won no prizes for the acclaimed The Great Dictator in 1940 because he was widely seen as a leftwinger; he had called on the US to back the Russians during World War II before the US entered it. He was awarded a consolation Oscar in 1972.In 1975, the co-winner of the best documentary prize for Hearts and Minds, Burt Schneider, an activist against the Vietnam War, read a message from the Vietnamese thanking the peace movement for its help. One of the MCs, Frank Sinatra, apologised to viewers for the fact that such a statement had been made. — Â