Feature Photo: 1965, The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Board of Governors, with President Gregory Peck at head of table, Margaret Herrick to the right, followed by Vice President Elmer Bernstein
By Daniel Smith-Rowsey
Prior to last week, in its century-long history, Hollywood has had two major, conspicuous talent overhauls, one in the late 1920s, and one in the late 1960s. Both historical “purges” were driven by severe, untypical economic and cultural anxieties, and the overhauls were accompanied by alterations to policies of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) that served as key drivers/reflectors of the winds of change blowing through the industry. Presuming that Friday’s announced change in Academy policies pertains, it augurs the industry’s third serious overhaul, and here we take a moment to compare and contrast with the previous two, to see what’s similar, what’s different, and what we might expect in the near future.
Everyone knows about the transition from silent to sound pictures occasioned by the epoch-making success of The Jazz Singer in 1927, and how scores of actors were sidelined or fired; after all, it’s the plot of one of Hollywood’s best movies, Singin’ in the Rain (1952). This transition was “raced” (as we say in academia), meaning laden with racial undertones; for example, the film The Bronze Screen, which is about the history of Latinos in Hollywood, says that the advent of sound turned accent-heavy, leading Latino men into supporting players. This postcard version of history has been challenged, but the consensus is that at least a few hundred contracted actors were forced to change those contracts.
Less noted, at least in the Singin’ in the Rain version, is that 1927 was a heady time for the industry anyway: after years of sex scandals, drug scandals, murder scandals, and unionization (to the studio chiefs, also a scandal), the industry leaders, led by Louis B. Mayer, were looking for ways to thin the undesirables from the herd as well as confer some sort of prestige on their fledgling business. In 1927 the Hays Office issued, with studio acquiescence, its first list of “Don’t”s and “Be Careful”s, a sharp warning that the industry had better tread lightly when it came to sin and vice. This problem was also “raced” by contemporary racial definitions, when anti-Semitism was considered equivalent to racism; for context, read transcripts of the 1916 Congressional hearings when Louis Brandeis became the first Jew to ascend to the Supreme Court. The studios were run by first-generation Jews seeking assimilation and every other aspect of the American Dream; the Academy was a symbolic gesture away from “seediness” and “immorality.” In one night in May 1927, Mayer’s deputized his biggest (and WASPiest) star, Douglas Fairbanks Sr., to get 231 insiders to give $100 each in order to become most of the founding membership of the Motion Picture Academy.
Awards were an afterthought, and only by July 1928 did the Academy get around to creating the voting system for their inaugural Awards that would take place in early 1929. After The Jazz Singer (1927), the studios spent more than half of their working capital outfitting theaters, and their production stages, for sound, increasing their stakes and encouraging more industry elites to think in terms of haves and have-nots. This tendency was only exacerbated in the acrimonious Academy committee meetings of mid-1928 to decide questions like: separate categories for silent and sound? (Yes.) Comedy and drama? (Yes.) Artistic and popular? (Yes, that first time.) A special award for Chaplin, because he was to cinema what Abraham Lincoln was to rail-splitters? (Yes.)
By the 2nd Academy Awards, the stock market had crashed, pushing the nascent Academy rule-makers into even more vituperative arguments; they were desperately trying to confer a patina of quality (think All Quiet on the Western Front, 1930) even as the industry scrambled for bigger, broader, more populist films to lure people who no longer cared for movies. No doubt 1927-30 would have been transformational with or without the Academy Awards, but at the time their new presence served as both reflector and director of what the industry thought it could preserve – it was as though the studios were using the awards to say: don’t think of us as the anarchic anything-goes slapstick-comedy-ish Fatty Arbuckle-led Sodom and Gomorrah; think of us as those who make quality dramas with Emil Jannings and Janet Gaynor.
Then as now, within a very short time, much of the town’s talent pool, especially its actors, felt as though it had just been unceremoniously shown the exit door – partly because of the new genres that sound occasioned, like musicals and gangster films. But then, not so much like now, it was hard for, say, Buster Keaton or Lillian Gish to complain about losing jobs on movie sets when they knew that 25% of the country was out of work, selling apples and pencils out of tin cans, and standing in bread lines that stretched for blocks.
The second and until now only other major talent overhaul occurred during the late 1960s, when the studios faced its only other true financial-cultural-existential crisis. As someone who has written a book that atomized Hollywood’s 1969-71 period, I can say that any two sentences will be a massive over-generalization, but essentially, after the twin failures of the “sword-and-sandals” cycle after Cleopatra (1963) and the big-budget musical cycle after The Sound of Music (1965), Hollywood looked bloated, out of touch with changing standards (the old ratings system went kablooie, then replaced by the one we now know), and on the wrong side of the (endlessly discussed in the media) “generation gap.” The 1960s’ youth movement was also “raced”; at its core it was white people claiming the same dissatisfaction with “the system” as blacks, whites for the first time seeking to affix “-American” to their identities (e.g. Irish-American, Italian-American, Polish-American) and/or, as many hippies did, nakedly appropriating Native American imagery and symbols. By late 1969, Hollywood’s only real hits of the previous three years had been films that seemed to “get” these young people, like Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate, Rosemary’s Baby, Bullitt, Easy Rider, Midnight Cowboy, and The Wild Bunch.
The transition was best described by Dennis Bingham:
A massive generational turnover, the likes of which had not been seen since the coming of sound, took place in only a few years – roughly 1967-71. It gave these ‘New Hollywood’ actors opportunities for lasting power as producers, directors, or actors as auteurs. They displaced a generational cohort that, in the youth wave and the collapse of the mass-audience blockbuster, lost the bankability many of them had owned for two decades or more. Among these were Bob Hope, Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Doris Day, Audrey Hepburn, Rock Hudson, Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, John Wayne, Charlton Heston, Henry Fonda, Gregory Peck, Elizabeth Taylor, Jerry Lewis, Dean Martin, William Holden, Jack Lemmon, Marlon Brando, and James Stewart.
All white people. And it wasn’t just actors; think of the greatest classical-Hollywood directors, all white men – Billy Wilder, Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford, William Wyler, George Stevens, many many more – all put out to pasture at this time. In 1967, Robert Evans, then a boyish-looking 37 and recently installed as head of production at Paramount, told the press, “The strongest period in Hollywood history was in the 30s, when most of the creative people were young. The trouble is that most of them are still around making movies.” He then boasted that 28 of 48 directors at Paramount had no directorial experience prior to 1963. Might a similar boast be coming soon today?
Ah yes, 1963: the year Gregory Peck won an Oscar for playing Atticus Finch, M.L. King led the March on Washington, John Kennedy was killed, and what we think of as “the sixties” really began. Perhaps it’s a coincidence, but that 1963 date came up again in 1970, three years after Peck had been made President of AMPAS, in the industry’s effort to respond to cultural upheaval. In mid-1970 Peck said that, effective immediately, 335 members had been re-designated non-voting “associates” if they hadn’t worked in (wait for it) seven years. It was as though Peck was saying: if you missed the 60s, thanks for your service, now don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
As my book details, the emergent stars of the period would not, could not look like the Rock Hudsons and Tony Curtises of yore; they had to somehow reflect the “raced” and “-American” youth movements, and so with exceptions (like Robert Redford), they looked more like Dustin Hoffman, Jack Nicholson, Barbra Streisand, and Al Pacino, a “grittier” style pioneered by the great casting director Marion Dougherty. (Hollywood was not quite ready to turn over the town to Bruce Lee and Rita Moreno and Richard Roundtree; these were its half-measures.)
Then as now, within a very short time, much of the town’s talent pool, especially its actors, felt as though it had just been unceremoniously shown the exit door – partly because of the new genres that the new standards occasioned, like alienated Euro-flavored road movies, blaxploitation and sexually explicit films. In this case, another revived genre, the disaster film, emerged as what J. Hoberman wryly called a “retirement project” for classical Hollywood, a place for the old stars to enact their endangered, fading relevance. (Look at the casts of Airport, The Poseidon Adventure, Earthquake!, and the like.) The Oscars in 1970-75 were almost an extension of that disaster genre, a sort of cheesy, Vegasy sequin-fronted talent show, where George C. Scott and Marlon Brando could skip picking up their trophies and still be nominated the following year.
The early 30s and the early 70s were comparable not economically – in the latter period, America’s economy was robust – but culturally. In each period, a certain group that claimed to represent the “real” American Dream was vilified by half the country, celebrated by the other half – in the 30s, gangsters, in the 70s, hippies. (That does not mean that the celebrating half actually belonged to what it celebrated; these days, young people sometimes don’t realize that very few Kennedy-Johnson voters actually tried to attend Woodstock.) In each period, the movie industry, through its Academy Awards, essentially said: we have the right to make movies that understand these people, even if we are not of them, even if we are often above them. The movies claimed the unique dispensation to take the country’s genuine tension, unrest and upheaval – much of which was “raced” – as an alchemist takes lead, to transmute it into gold.
How does all this relate to today? Well, President Obama has compared our period to the 1930s every time he mentions “the worst crisis since the Great Depression.” And the current wave of political correctness has often been compared to the university-led dynamics of the 1970s, when education at every level was first forced to integrate and reckon with the standards it had established by and for white men. You could almost say that our current time is a 1930-1970s superblend.
In this context, it’s interesting that last week, Academy President Cheryl Boone Isaacs announced that membership rights would – starting next year – be altered if one had not worked in ten years. I’ve written before about how the current revival of “politically correct” really began in 2006 (because of the start of Twitter, the Danish cartoon controversy, the last real immigration legislation, the arrest of Mel Gibson, Oprah seeing how she would look as other races, Limbaugh making fun of Michael J. Fox, Ice Cube executive-producing “Black/White,” and dozens of other reasons) and would have continued under a hypothetical President McCain. Not so unlike her predecessor Peck, Isaacs was saying, if you’ve missed the PC era, thanks for your service, now don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Those who defend PC, and to some extent #blacklivesmatter, may well be to us what gangsters were to Herbert Hoover’s presidency, what hippies were to Richard Nixon’s: dividing the country into celebrators and vilifiers. Then as now, Hollywood truly wants to be on both sides. Then as now, Hollywood wants the right to present such people while staying above them…as much as it can. In the current #oscarssowhite furor, it seemed as though Hollywood didn’t feel it could stay as aloof as it had. Did it go too far, farther than it had under Mayer in the 1920s and Peck in the 1960s?
Some of the Academy members interviewed by The Hollywood Reporter seem to think so. There’s a feeling that ageism shouldn’t be considered an acceptable response to regrettable institutional racism. For those whose membership predates 1970, it’s interesting that they didn’t speak out on the same problem when Gregory Peck announced his changes. It’s especially ironic to me that of all people, Tab Hunter called the announcement “bullshit.” He elaborated, “Obviously, it’s a thinly-veiled ploy to kick out older white contributors — the backbone of the industry — to make way for younger, ‘politically-correct’ voters. The Academy should not cave in to media hype and change the rules without talking to or getting votes from all members first.” Hunter and his Elvis-era peers were exactly what casting agent Marion Dougherty were working against in the 1960s, or as Dougherty put it then, “fewer Tabs and Troys.” So one “reading” of the current turmoil is that it only took two purges and a half-century for the Oscars to sideline Tab Hunter; another “reading” is that no matter what, we should keep listening to guys like him.
As I’ve written, last semester, my undergraduate students made spreadsheets of the top-grossing, most-Oscar-nominated films of each year of this century; the amount of minority representation is far, far under levels that compare to the share of minorities in the 2010 census. Something has to change. We always come upon this problem with institutional racism or what some call “racism without racists”; can we change without hurting anyone or provoking calls of “reverse racism” (thank you, Charlotte Rampling)? Apparently not, in 2016. But is the cultural crisis really comparable to that faced by America in the 1930s and 1970s? Apparently, it is.
The secret of Donald Trump’s appeal may well be comparable to Richard Nixon’s appeal to the “silent majority” in 1968: Trump’s front-line, refuse-to-apologize-ever offense against all that might be called “politically correct.” Hollywood, like Hillary Clinton, is stuck defending PC or at least accommodating it, as it did in the cases of the twitterverse campaigns against Star Wars and Saturday Night Live. Probably Hollywood would love to make more franchises as diverse as The Fast and the Furious, but until last week Hollywood didn’t seem to realize this wasn’t happening fastly or furiously enough. Somehow, long after Obama became President, Hollywood was still grooming and hiring a lot more Tom Hardys and Emma Stones than it was Michael B. Jordans or Gugu Mbatha-Raws.
So now, like in the 1930s and 1970s, will we see new ratings systems, new standards, even new or revived genres? I doubt it, although that would be nice; Hollywood’s blockbusters-and-a-few-prestige-films model has pertained for four decades now, and needs a shakeup, though I wonder if more minorities and women will do the trick. One would hope that every calcified procedure gets a little challenged.
The Academy Awards are only one symbol of Hollywood, a minor reflector/director of its image. Yet it’s still worth asking where that minor driver is driving us in 2016. Is this Third Purge going to make a difference? Yes, probably. Much like the Oscars in the early 1930s and early 1970s, the ceremony and attendant hullabaloo will have a tinny, forced, awkward quality for at least five years or so. And then, partly thanks to changes forced by far-seeing Academy Presidents who had both a sense of historical prestige and a willingness to throw older talent under the bus, the Oscars will – by the time of their centennial – settle into a reasonable representation of America that most of America apparently finds acceptable. It’s happened before.
# # #
Follow Daniel Smith-Rowsey on Twitter @smithrowsey
And on his blog, Map to the Future
Sasha did not write this.
Sasha, thank you for this fascinating, outstanding article. It provides deep insight into the workings of Hollywood and beyond, and I think is relevant and prescient (at least I hope).
I’d like to run something by you, in the context of your litany of events that made 2006 that launched an era of political correctness. In addition, to everything you said, I submit that one of the “dozens of other reasons” beyond those you named came directly from the Academy, namely the snubbing of Brokeback Mountain for Best Picture. Certainly there was an uproar when it happened, but it lasted only about a week, maybe because few really cared what won the Oscar, and because it was not as clear to most then, as I think it is now, especially right now, that institutional homophobia cost that movie the Oscar. But, when it did happen, I for one knew, in my bones, that I had just been gay-bashed. And it changed me, and my life, for reasons I’ll get to in a minute.
Things have changed since preferential balloting began, now stats fall yearly; but back then, precedents were the thing, and it was very easy to predict the Oscars, at least the 8 majors (acting, directing, picture, screenplays). But prior, it took a lot to take down the stats, and to take down Brokeback, they had to bend over backwards (haha… sorry). DGA, PGA, WGA = Best Picture, 100% of the time, even still. NY & LA Crix & Globe & most nominations – Best Picture 100% of the time. BAFTA, Critics Choice, 20+ Best Picture prizes (setting a record at the time, more than Schindler’s List & Titanic combined). Sight & Sound, Venice, Indie Spirit, biggest box-office (by 50%), cultural zeitgeist, etc. Yeah, there was no editing nom (but there was an Eddie nom), but that was a very minor blip at the time, on hardly anybody’s major precursor list, and nothing compared to its overwhelming wave of prizes. The politically-acceptable challenger just wasn’t in the same league, not even a Globe picture nomination, 69 at metacritic with mixed reviews, but a SAG prize for that enormous ensemble – a 50% indicator, not a Picture prize.
Moreover, you had Ernest Borgnine saying neither he nor “any of his friends in the Academy” would watch because “John Wayne would roll over in his grave”. Tony Curtis said the same, as did others. Its bad enough they have gone 0 for 40 the past two years, but can you imagine the outcry if members said they wouldn’t watch Beasts of No Nation or Compton etc. because some KKK member would have rolled over in his grave??
Well, I was mostly in the closet back then, but as an Academy nut who knew all the winners and most nominees by heart since I was a kid (except shorts, documentaries, animated), I knew something unprecedented had happened, and so did the great Jack Nicholson when he said “whoa” after he read the winner. I was very agitated, and I started checking out the blogs. Many agreed with what I thought, but many did not, and then the rest swept it under the rug. I started talking to people. I quoted the stats, and would present the evidence like a lawyer to prove my case. Most of those who listened were convinced, to my pleasure….but to my enormous displeasure, few cared, including gay friends, who said they’d still watch and support the Academy, because it was no big deal, and they liked watching the fashion show that was/is the Oscars. They were basically kicked out of the party, but would gladly return if allowed anyway.
But they were wrong, it did matter. Skeptics said I overreacted, it was liberal California, but remember, Prop 8 passed there only two years later. The as-almost-always behind the times Academy was indeed a reflection of the more conservative elements of CA, but people were too complacent about that bill thinking it would never pass, so it did. And people were too complacent about not taking the Academy to task then, so things did not change (unless you want to count hiring Ellen De Generes as host the next year, which pissed me off further, what a cynical move to shut up the disgruntled…but it mostly worked, didn’t it, people took that bone and ran with hit).
So here we are in 2016, and the same thing happened, two years in a row, with people like Rampling denying the institutional racism that I just don’t see how you can deny. Ava Duvernay and David Oyelowo and Riz Ahmed (Nightcrawler) and Compton and Idris Elba and Michael B. Jordan and Will Smith and others, ALL snubbed, yet all having been nominated for multiple honors elsewhere, many winning…yet many Academy members contend that maybe nobody of color was worthy??? C’mon. And yeah, the Academy honored 12 Years a Slave, but so what?? Just because they did the right thing in a year where it was the co-mega-film of the year (with Gravity) simply means there were enough people in the Academy who are not racist to “do the right thing” (another infamous, unforgivable snub). You don’t judge a group by getting it right when its the overwhelming consensus…you judge the group when you say what they do with those on the cusp…and those on the cusp get short shrift by the Academy all the time, worse than most group. Look at Idris Elba, who really shouldn’t have been on the cusp of a nomination, but even arguing he was, SAG indeed did the right thing. And Ava shouldn’t have been on the cusp either, she was a solid, by-far #4 in directing prizes/nominations, but the DVD fiasco sort of kind of a little seemed like a decent excuse. But not really.
So, my point, is that the Academy gay-bashed, and it turned me into a gay rights activist (had already been one for civil rights and women’s rights), something I may never have been, and it caused me to come out to almost all in my life (as bi). The Oscars are a cultural moment for America, so the humiliation of that film losing when it had every reason to win felt personal to me, and it changed my life in a positive way, as it turned out, despite being obsessed with proving my point for years thereafter…even now.
When I met Cheryl Boone Isaacs at the Governor’s Awards in November, 2014, she said they were trying to change, she already knew there was a need. And look what’s happened since, the 0/40! Its too bad a cultural storm of criticism has forced their hand, but I’m glad its finally forced, and hopefully will give her the power she needs to again, do the right thing. Thanks for reading!
P.S. The Academy also fails to do its job by stepping back and trying to judge films for its artistic merits. History shows, they just don’t. As you’ve repeatedly said, Sasha, they vote for what they like. If they are mostly straight, maybe they aren’t homophobic, they just can’t relate to a gay-themed film. If they are mostly white, maybe they just can’t relate to an film about the struggles of black people. But heck, they are artists, and they have an obligation to watch with open hearts and minds, and try. I was just a kid when Rocky beat Network, Taxi Driver and All the President’s Men back in 1976…holy cow. I loved Rocky, it was my favorite, but even that at 12 years old I knew that was unfair to the others, and on my personal simulated ballot, I chose the brilliant Network instead, because I knew it was simply better (no apologies, either; I realize Taxi Driver is even more revered and more cinematic and an equally brilliant winner, but Network has come true!). Anyhow, yes, of course you need to like the film, movies are about entertainment, but that’s for the People’s Choice Awards. The Academy is supposed to be about quality. Separate the two. The Academy doesn’t, and often they don’t even try. Kudos to them for the new rules, certainly a step in the right direction.
Do you really think that all film awards are created ”out of genuine love for the movies”?
I believed that the studios created the Oscars primarily to promote their own movies, but after doing some research, it turns out their origin was even more cynical: In the late 1920s, Louis B. Mayer, the head of MGM, started getting nervous when studio construction unions started forming in Hollywood. He feared that labor agreements would cost the studios too much money. And he figured that soon the actors, directors, writers, etc., would unionize, too, so Mayer and his buddies created the Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences (AMPAS). The hope was to stave off any more unionization efforts. Mayer invited a group of 36 producers, directors, actors, writers, etc., and told them that working conditions would improve and they could be part of an elite new Academy. The Oscars were actually an afterthought, as a way to legitimize this new anti-union group. … Of course, in time, the producers, actors, directors, etc., would unionize and give out their own awards.
No doubt the NAACP Image Awards probably originated because the African-American community was tired of being overlooked and wanted their own way to celebrate the artistic contributions of their community. Ditto, for the Latino community and the ALMA Awards, and for the LGBT community and the GLAAD Awards. … So? There’s no law that says that the only legit prizes are given out by a 94% white Academy or mostly white critics.
Thanks for another awesome article, hood!
brilliant.
The Oscars are already poisoned this year with the Star Wars: Force Awakens snub and #OscarsSoWhiteAgain. At least the critics and moviegoers made the academy look so juvenile and spiteful. And watch the ratings decline again
There are dozens and dozens of film awards, practically one for every metropolitan area in this country. Adding one more can’t hurt. Besides rather than waiting for the Oscars to recognize artists of color, this seems like a pro-active thing to do. I’m familiar with the NAACP Image Awards, the African American Film Critics Association and the Black Reel Awards, but ”Def Black Awards” might be the first one to air online.
Besides, there’s no ceiling on the number of movie prizes. If the Hollywood Awards, the Palm Springs Film Festival and Santa Barbara Film Festival can make up prizes to give to the same circle of Oscar contenders, I don’t see why a new award can’t be created to recognize the artists of color who were overlooked by the Academy. At the end of the day, it’s all about promotion, which is why the Oscars were first created.
Love that point. In addition to mentioning the Bronze Screen and the last big immigration bill in this article, I’d add that Inarritu and Lubeski must be like, Oscars so white? Okay, sure…
Oh, I absolutely see them doing this level of change again, but not before their centennial. 20 years maybe
The debate over diversity is literally often framed in black and white, but here’s a commentary with a Latino point of view by Emmy winner/ Golden Globe and SAG nominee John Leguizamo. An excerpt:
”Latin people make up 17% of the U.S. population, but we had less than 5% of the film roles (according to a 2014 study) — even though the Motion Picture Association of America says we buy about 25% of all movie tickets.
“Latinos don’t want to see movies about other Latinos,” a studio executive once said to me. But my people love movies so much, we’ll even see stories about white people. My long track record of selling out theaters across the country demonstrates how badly people of color want to see themselves represented on stage. …
”We have been patient, but our patience has been rewarded with neglect. We don’t ask for affirmative action policies, only for producers to recognize that they can make a lot of money by telling stories that are inclusive.”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2016/02/07/john-leguizamo-oscars-diversity-opinion/79875756/#
Very helpful! I’m going to check out your book!
I’d be curious to know if you think the new rules might help keep the Academy from having a “fourth purge” on such a big scale, or if they’re going to be back in this same position in 30 or 40 or 50 years when tastes and demographics have shifted again.
It seems like this time around, in addition to having a big purge, they’re trying to set up the rules so that the rolling 10 year requirement will release the pressure little by little, instead of having to dump all the old folks at once the next time around. Do you think this set of rules is different from the earlier ones in this way? Or did the older purges think they had found a permanent answer too? Do you think the new rules will work as a long term strategy, or will people just find a new way around them?
Well said
Solid point. Though I do think the industry is frightened to death about piracy, streaming, “maximum TV” (read FX chief Landgraf’s warnings; every studio has extensive TV ties), and Spielberg’s warning about what happens when 12 blockbusters utterly fail some summer. But yeah I see your point, especially from the older members who aren’t worried about any of this at all
A standing ovation is in order
[stands and ovates]
This.
Fantastic article! I enjoyed it tremendously.
Pete Hammond at Deadline.com recently ran a fascinating piece called: How Gregory Peck Led a Revolution and Infused Youth and Diversity in the Oscars. Peck, an Oscar-winning actor and then AMPAS president, oversaw sweeping changes to make the Academy membership younger and more active, back in 1967. Excerpt:
”Peck realized that his effort to inject youth into the rolls would mean retiring many older and/or inactive members who hadn’t worked in eons but still prized their vote. He eased that hardship by moving them to “Associate” status. That meant that while their voting rights were taken away, they were still able to feel part of the proceedings by attending screenings. Familiar? That’s exactly how the idea is being sold this time around; voters who have ballots taken away can still attend screenings, and receive screener DVDs under their “emeritus” status.
”The media glare on Peck’s effort wasn’t nearly as harsh as it is now for Cheryl Boone Isaacs. The Academy was able to make significant changes to its membership, keep it fairly quiet, and come out relatively unscathed.”
Of course, a big difference now is the Internet. Academy members can tweet their displeasure, or write letters to the Hollywood Reporter, which will print them online. … It probably also helped Peck that he was a respected Oscar winner who was heading this charge. … And while Hollywood is struggling to move toward diversity, speaking of Trump, it’s disheartening to read that two-thirds of GOP voters in N.H. back his ban on Muslims.
http://deadline.com/2016/02/academy-awards-diversity-gregory-peck-oscars-boycott-pete-hammond-commentary-1201694464/
Question, is there any evidence that Hollywood actually cares about any of this? There was a clear threat to the bottom line in the 30s and 70s purges, but there didn’t seem to be any shortage of box office hits last year. Kind of feel like this seems like more of a crisis to people within certain Twitter bubbles than it does to people in power, which might be why a lot of these Academy members view this “purge” as something of an over-reaction.
Super informative.
Douglas Fairbanks Sr. might have been the “Waspiest” star culturally, but his biological father was a Jew