The Oscars ceremony on Sunday last week was long and boring, as it has been for a few years, but this year, its shortcomings landed differently. Hollywood’s waning influence, which registered most glaringly last month in the large number of American nominees who showed up in London for the BAFTAs — not something they were inclined to do in better times — gave the ceremony a sense of low-stakes irrelevance that was frankly a relief from the rest of the news cycle. Still, the question lingers as to why the actors and presenters largely, and mercifully in my view, stayed away from mention of US President Donald Trump.
After the devastating wildfires in Los Angeles in January, the classy thing to have done this year would have been to cancel or at least radically downsize the Oscars ceremony, but of course no one involved was going to vote for that. Instead, audiences were treated to a muted spectacle celebrating movies with record-breakingly small box office returns, including The Brutalist, in which actor Adrien Brody relived the US postwar construction boom in real time, and Anora, one of the lowest-grossing best pictures of all time, about an exotic dancer who marries a rich Russian. (What could be behind the deep and abiding fascination of straight male directors — and novelists and podcasters — with the “sex worker community”? That is right, it is altruism.)
In 2017, in the wake of Trump’s first ascent to the presidency, there were many fiery speeches from the Oscars podium, among them talk show host Jimmy Kimmel’s opening monologue, which was dominated by Trump content; a defense of immigrants led by the actor Gael Garcia Bernal; and director Barry Jenkins entreating those in need of help to reach out to the American Civil Liberties Union. This year, by contrast, there was almost nothing: a decent Anora-related joke by the host, Conan O’Brien, about Americans being “excited to see somebody finally stand up to a powerful Russian.” The actor Zoe Saldana referring pointedly to her immigrant parents. And some criticism of the US government by the Israeli-Palestinian team behind No Other Land, the winner of best documentary.
If it is cowardice, it is not of the ordinary kind. At the 2017 Oscars, there was a running gag about actor Meryl Streep and Trump premised on the then popular idea that Trump was a big dummy who fluked his way to the White House. That tone does not work now. In fact, given the five-alarm fire of US politics, comic flippancy about Trump has to be calibrated more finely than the broad, bland platform of the Oscars is perhaps designed to accommodate.
There is also the question of Hollywood’s role in the collapse of the Democratic vote. That is probably delusional thinking, but there might have been a grain of humility — or at least of self-interested awareness — in the decision by wave after wave of Oscar-winning actors on Sunday not to use the podium to make political points. Looking back at the campaign of former US vice president Kamala Harris, which relied heavily on A-list Hollywood support, the conviction that celebrities swing votes or win hearts has never been less popular or assured. Some in the auditorium on Sunday might even still be in recovery from the failure of Time’s Up (remember that?), a dog’s breakfast of a movement in which Hollywood’s leading ladies leveraged their fame for an admirable cause that somehow ended up with actress Amy Schumer mugging for attention on the Capitol steps.
I feel for public figures in a way: damned if they do, damned if they do not. After Sunday night, the film industry looks craven and weak — on the other hand, as actor Ricky Gervais said when he hosted the Golden Globes in 2020: “You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg.” No one needs Brody’s thoughts on anything outside acting — and even that, let us face it, is a drag.
And yet, given the customary willingness of actors and directors to espouse political causes, the silence on Sunday has added to the clanging, baffling sense in the US of: where, exactly, is the dissent? Why are not people screaming? (US Vice President JD Vance and his family did have to be moved to a secret location while on a skiing holiday in Vermont last week, because of the numbers who came out to protest.)
Perhaps all the Ozempic in the room had made people light-headed. Perhaps the lack of politics was pregamed. Producers said ahead of the ceremony that the telecast would focus on the ways in which filmmaking requires “community and collaboration,” which sounds a bit like businessman Jeff Bezos’ commitment to “personal liberties” on the op-ed pages of the Washington Post. Only the actor Daryl Hannah, who managed to throw a V-sign and say: “Slava Ukraine!” to cheers from the crowd, failed to get the memo.
The takeaway is that, in Hollywood as elsewhere, people are scared, not only because Trump is petty and vindictive, but also because the vast uncertainty of the world we are suddenly in can make judicious silence seem more sensible than speeches. Where that tips into capitulation — and whether Hollywood, like the tech and media industries, would give us our era’s version of Leni Riefenstahl — remains to be seen.
Emma Brockes is a Guardian columnist.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
Taiwan ranks second globally in terms of share of population with a higher-education degree, with about 60 percent of Taiwanese holding a post-secondary or graduate degree, a survey by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development showed. The findings are consistent with Ministry of the Interior data, which showed that as of the end of last year, 10.602 million Taiwanese had completed post-secondary education or higher. Among them, the number of women with graduate degrees was 786,000, an increase of 48.1 percent over the past decade and a faster rate of growth than among men. A highly educated population brings clear advantages.
RSS