T
Few surprises were to be found at the Oscars this year. The tried and true formula of Oppenheimer’s charm winning over voters and Ryan Gosling’s handsome appearance enchanting viewers remained consistent. However, a typically safe broadcast found itself in more contentious waters when British writer-director Jonathan Glazer graced the stage.
The director accepted the prize for best international feature for his tense World War II film, The Zone of Interest, which takes place on the outskirts of Auschwitz. In a departure from the overall apolitical tone of the evening, he used the opportunity to make a statement.
Glazer states that our choices are a reflection of ourselves in the present. The purpose is not to dwell on past actions, but to focus on our current actions. Our film illustrates the consequences of dehumanization at its most extreme. It has played a significant role in shaping our past and present. As men who reject our Jewish identity, we are horrified by the exploitation of the Holocaust by an occupying force, resulting in the suffering of innocent individuals. This dehumanization raises the question: how can we stand against it?
Glazer received praise at the time, but his words were quickly distorted, misunderstood, and mishandled online. Some sources and individuals interpreted his speech as a rejection of his Jewish identity. Meghan McCain tweeted, “Hollywood exposed when classifies as speech reject Jewishness room attendees clap” in response. Abraham Foxman, a lawyer and national director of the Anti-Defamation League, was shocked that Glazer would dishonor the memory of millions of Jews with his words. To clarify the confusion, MSNBC host Chris Hayes acknowledged that the phrasing may have been awkward, but many people had misunderstood it. There were also rumors about the video not being available on the official Oscars YouTube channel. However, it was later clarified that ABC owns the rights to the speech for the next month, after which it will be available on the channel.
However, there were individuals who comprehended the quote in its entirety but were swift to express their dissatisfaction. According to a statement from the Combat Antisemitism Movement, Glazer transformed a remarkable feat into a moment that highlighted his Jewish identity” and used it as a chance to criticize Israel. David Schaecter, president of the Holocaust Survivors, deemed the speech to be “inaccurate in its facts and indefensible in its morality.”
During an interview with the Guardian for the launch of The Zone of Interest, Glazer was questioned about the striking similarity of the film to the ongoing events in Gaza. Glazer expressed his distress that the film remains timely and will continue to be so until humanity can break the pattern of perpetuating violence. As for when that will occur, Glazer believes it will not happen in his lifetime.
The conversation will likely continue, though it will undoubtedly be one-sided due to Glazer’s aversion to attention. This serves as a reminder of the potential harm of a political Oscars speech. Glazer was praised by many for being the only winner to mention the ongoing conflict that has claimed over 31,000 lives between Palestinians and Israelis. While Boots Riley expressed support for his words, Mehdi Hasan of The Guardian criticized the distortion of his message as “shameful” and a Haaretz editorial stated: “The truth, even if uncomfortable for some Israelis, is that Glazer was correct.” In a time when many award-winners choose to avoid controversy, Glazer’s words have sparked a strong reaction.
Although there has been a significant decrease in viewership from its peak, the Oscars is still the most popular awards ceremony globally. This year’s show was watched by over 19 million Americans. The event has always been a platform for immense influence and accountability, and while many acceptance speeches follow a standard format of thanking family, God, and agents, some have taken the opportunity to address pressing issues on a global scale and faced repercussions soon after.
In 2003, Michael Moore won the best documentary Oscar for Bowling for Columbine, itself a plea for stricter gun control, and came on stage to make another, bigger plea. The ceremony took place just four days after the US invasion of Iraq (it was a slightly restrained affair without a red carpet and with dystopian news updates scattered throughout), and it was a time when the majority of Americans supported George Bush’s decision. Yet Moore, like the protesters outside, was outraged from the outset, before many others caught up.
During the intermission prior to the announcement of the award, he urged his fellow nominees to come together and make an anti-war statement. Following a standing ovation, which included famous figures like Martin Scorsese, Cameron Diaz, and Julianne Moore, the large group proceeded to the stage. Moore, upon receiving the award, stated, “They are standing with me in solidarity because we are advocates of nonfiction. We appreciate nonfiction because we currently reside in a time filled with false realities, even in regards to elections and the election of a false president.”
At that moment, the displeased reactions from the audience began. Moore proceeded to criticize Bush as a president who led the country into a false war for false reasons. However, he was quickly cut off by music, as Oscar producer Gilbert Cates deemed Moore’s actions as “inappropriate”. The initial support and applause for Moore’s arrival on stage had turned sour by the time he left.
Years later, Moore disclosed the severity of the aftermath. He described being ostracized for the rest of the night by most attendees, compared to the parting of the Red Sea. The situation was even worse back home in Michigan, with signs posted near his residence and a wall of horse manure blocking his driveway. As right-wing media outlets vilified him, Moore hired security due to being assaulted six times over the next two years.
In 2017, he wrote that he would be remembered as “the guy who always told the truth”. He also noted that people in other countries witnessed that not all Americans were in favor of George W. Bush and the invasion of Iraq.
25 years prior to the event, Vanessa Redgrave, who won the award for best supporting actress, had sparked controversy before speaking a word. While working on the production of the World War II film, Julia, she had formed relationships with Palestinian students and contributed her voice to a documentary called The Palestinian, which she also produced. This was seen as an anti-Israeli stance by certain groups, such as the Anti-Defamation League, and at the ceremony, members of the Jewish Defense League were burning effigies of her.
“After expressing gratitude, Redgrave then addressed the unacceptable behavior of a small group of Zionist extremists who do not represent all Jews and do a disservice to the brave history of Jewish resistance against fascism and oppression. Though her words were met with gasps and boos, writer Paddy Chayefsky later criticized her language and refused to speak with her. Redgrave clarified that her remarks were targeted at the Jewish Defense League, not all Jews.
In a 2016 interview with the Guardian, the subject was questioned about accusations of anti-Semitism and referred to them as “ridiculous.” She also stated, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but I know I have never held those beliefs. I believe time will prove that.”
She confessed that it had a temporary impact on her professional life, but standing up against injustice was more crucial. Redgrave would later be nominated for two more Academy Awards. In 2018, she expressed her surprise that publicly denouncing antisemitism and fascism could be seen as controversial. She stated, “I am realizing now that it is.” She also commented, “I felt a responsibility to do my part.”
Five years before that, in arguably the most well-known example of how quickly an audience can turn, an actor called Sacheen Littlefeather took to the stage to accept, or rather decline, the best actor Oscar on behalf of Marlon Brando. He’d won for his role in The Godfather yet in his place, she delivered a prepared speech that caused immediate anger. She said that Brando could not accept as a result of “the treatment of American Indians today by the film industry and on television” and also as a result of the recent violent occupation of Wounded Knee.
At the event, there were both positive and negative reactions from the audience. Actor John Wayne, who was reportedly trying to go on stage during the speaker’s speech, had to be restrained by six security guards. Later in the evening, Clint Eastwood joked about the Western films directed by John Ford while presenting the award for best picture. Other attendees also made offensive gestures and noises towards the speaker. In an interview with the Guardian in 2021, she described her presence on stage as that of a confident and courageous warrior, representing her community with grace and humility. Following this event, her career faced setbacks and she referred to herself as a magnet for controversy. It was believed that J Edgar Hoover’s warning to the industry against hiring her led to her virtual blacklisting. However, this controversy also brought attention to the events at Wounded Knee, with the awards ceremony reaching an international audience of 85 million people for the first time.
Some people responded to Glazer’s speech about his film, which has been praised as one of the most powerful depictions of the Holocaust since Schindler’s List by Steven Spielberg, during a tumultuous time for the film industry. Since October, celebrities have faced consequences, such as being fired from roles and dropped by their agents, for criticizing the Israeli government. Sadly, it is unsurprising that Glazer’s measured and considerate speech, where he spoke about the impact on people in both regions, has become another example of the ongoing and unwinnable culture war. This adds to an awards season that has been noticeably lacking in bold political statements. While Glazer, a filmmaker who does not prioritize a broad audience or require a large budget, is unlikely to suffer any professional repercussions, the backlash and consequences faced by others before him serve as a warning for the future.
Source: theguardian.com
