Sunday was the 92nd Academy Awards that took place at the Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles. Each winner, just like every other year, is allowed to give an acceptance speech. Instead of these speeches being about the actual award, the role they won the Oscar for or even cinema in general, a lot of speeches have been about social justice.
This is not necessarily bad. The Oscars is one of the most viewed events on television and many award winners wished to draw light to issues they hold dear, especially when in a position to speak for those who cannot. However, in the past few years, it seems that virtually every speech given has to do with social justice. Why? Because social justice is what stirs up attention on social media. That is not to say the issues these people are representing are unimportant or do not need voices, but when every single speech is about a different issue, it sounds more like a high school graduation speech than a speech that is meant to thank the people the winner wishes to thank.
In the case of “Hair Love,” the film that won best animated short, the speech was about representation of black culture and people in films. The director, Matthew A. Cherry, calls for more black hair representation in media. The film is about a young black girl who is insecure about her natural hair, and her parents trying to teach her to love herself. In the case of this speech, talking about loving yourself and your hair is relevant. It was what the movie was about and it is a topic that they, as people of color, hold close to their hearts. It is an issue that relates to the film industry, meaning there are not enough displays of natural hair in Hollywood.
In the case of Joaquin Phoenix, he read a lyric that his brother, the late River Phoenix, had written. This was admirable, since he was honoring his brother. I am sure his brother was an inspiration to him and someone he keeps close. He opens the speech by saying that his speech allows for him to have “the opportunity to use our voice for the voiceless.” He goes on then to give an impassioned speech about milk cows, and how the dairy and meat industry is corrupt and apathetic.
I am pretty certain that “Joker” had nothing to do with cows. In fact, his character, Joker, portrays everything in the current political sphere that we, as movie goers, should hate. He is violent and murders multiple people, all while the film highlights his mental illness. This moment, for Phoenix, could have been used to call for a dismantling of hate, unnecessary violence and defending the mentally ill, should he feel that he should use his voice for the voiceless. Instead, he uses his platform to talk about dairy cows.
USA Today interviewed a dairy farmer, who explained Phoenix’s accusations not only happen, but are helpful to the animal. The calf is removed from her mother to make sure it is healthy. The calf is not fed her mother’s milk, and is instead fed baby formula that has more nutrients to help the calf grow. This is not to say that the industrialized ways of collecting dairy are clean and empathetic toward the cows, but to lump those groups together to promote a vegan agenda is unfair and inaccurate.
Regardless of that, Phoenix should have used his time differently. Not just Phoenix, but every winner who made an impassioned speech about a social justice issue. It becomes disingenuous. After the fifteenth call for representation in media by a white person who is only in the room for starring in a white film, you start to believe they do not care. That does not mean that every person who gives a powerful speech about a political issue does not mean what they say, but it makes the audience feel like they are being smacked in the face with a “who can be the most liberal” contest.
The Academy Award hosts also made multiple “Oscars so white” jokes, meaning the nominees for each category and the line-up of winners were mostly comprised of white people. Nothing about this is humorous. The second an organization is aware of mistakes they are making and are actually making jokes about it, all without trying to change what is upsetting people, is problematic. The Academy Awards definitely screen the jokes that will happen on-stage before the event. The fact that they approved these ones goes to show that they do not actually care about improving and being more inclusive, but instead care about whether they appear inclusive or not.
Winners treating the acceptance speeches at the Academy Awards like they are trying to prove to the audience that they love people of color, LGBTQ+ people or even cows is shallow and transparent. We, the viewer, are here to share a love for movies. Social justice is good and fine, but when it becomes every speech made, it sets a precedent that every film needs to be “groundbreaking.” These are some of the biggest names in film making. When most of them are only there because the industry put them where they are, I cannot believe they are genuine. Obviously, there are a few exceptions, namely those who are minorities or worked on films that showcased people that you do not always see in film. However, when people want a medal or clout for thinking that everyone deserves equal rights, the viewer starts to not care anymore.
Bong Joon-Ho won best director and began to give his speech in Korean. Since the average Academy Awards viewer speaks in English, they had a translator so viewers knew what he was saying. Translation takes time. When the lights were taken off of Joon-Ho and moved to the person who would read the next award, Tom Hanks and Charlize Theron, who were sitting in the first row, began loudly shouting to turn the lights back onto Joon-Ho so he could finish his speech. This is how white people, or anyone in the majority, can show their support for those outside of it, not just reading a dictionary list of minorities and saying they do not hate them.
Photo from ABC via YouTube
