Cate Blanchett plays Bob Dylan in I'm Not There
Pete Brook tells us why
we should do away with gender-segregated Oscars.
There
are many strange things about trying to decide who is the ‘best
actor’ because whatever performance they give is through the lens
of a director and rewritten by the editor. We also don’t know what
they set out to do. For example, in Dr. Strangelove, George C. Scott,
wanted to play the role of General Buck Turgidson straight, but was
tricked into performing over the top “practice takes” for comedic
effect by Kubrick. The main point is that “Best Actor” sounds
objective, when really it is a completely subjective affair,
alongside the fact that the academy who votes on these matters may
well have vested interests in improving the revenue of their own films.
There
is however another anomaly in way these awards are designed and that
is that there are gender boxes for the acting awards, but for none of
the others. We don’t see best female editor, or best female VFX, or
best female Director.
I
have talked previously about the problems that arise from the lack of
female directors in the industry and I think giving female talent
more airtime can only be a good thing. HOWEVER, I cannot think of
anything more patronising than saying to female directors that they're going to be in a new “little league” for the girls. This isn’t
sport, there are no justifiable arguments like “men are on average
bigger or stronger”. This is a creative intelligence thing in which
men and women are entirely comparable and it you disagree I suggest
you go away read The Mismeasure of Man and rethink your approach.
One
argument against combining Best Actor and Best Actress is that, unlike any other role behind the camera, men
and women on screen simply can’t get the same jobs. I have to say I thoroughly disagree for two reasons.
1. Because there are a lot of things that make people unsuitable for a
role- race, size, or age are just a few examples. It would be ridiculous
to suggest categories like the Best Tall Female Hispanic Leading
actor in a 20-30 age bracket.
2. Prosthetics and makeup are currently good enough that this is no
longer a consideration. Take, for example, Todd Haynes' surrealist Bob
Dylan biopic I’m Not There. It’s shows Bob Dylan at different stages in his life
from young boy to old man and how they would interact if they met. It
has a stellar cast; Christian Bale, Richard Gere, Heath Ledger, Ben
Wishaw and, in my opinion, the most convincing and engaging Bob Dylan
(based appearance and mannerisms) is Cate Blanchett.
There
are movies out there in which a women play men, and what about trans actors, or actors who play people on both sides of a transsexual operation like in Transamerica?
The
only problem I see with this now is that there are many more men in
movies, and most leading characters are male (only 1/3 are women).
This may push women to the back of the pack in the awards. However I
think that we have to make a decision as to whether we should
patronise artists at the cost of giving them more airtime. Maybe this
is an idea that works better in a perfect world where woman are
equally represented in film, but I think we need to standardise our
approach and not have a gender-segregating system in place that, if followed to its logical conclusion, would have named Kathryn
Bigelow Best Female Director instead of Best Director.
Peter
Owen Brook
One of the worst points with this industry being so male-oriented is that some women (producers, assistant directors, agents, etc.), end up "playing the game" to keep employed. I wrote about an experience where (for a film with an Oscar-nominated director and an Oscar-winning actor) the female agent sent me to an "audition" with female-only casting people and production staff, consisting in TAPING FULL ON STRIPTEASE for the appreciation of the director and their producer bosses, most likely all men. Detail: these girls were actually just going to be cast as extras. You can read it on my blog, the posting is called "Strippers Vs. Extras"
ReplyDelete