Awards NIght (Part Two)

In a previous blog I discussed the fact that actors and others who worked in the business of producing films and television programs were being clear about how their industry needed to clean up its act both in terms of how women were being treated and the lack of diversity within the profession in general. While I did not see the awards show early this week, it is clear from the various news sites that both of those issues were raised.

The issue of how diverse the profession and its product needs to be is complex. It is not clear to me as to who or what is driving this agenda. Is the demand for more movies/programs that reflect the cultural and ethnic makeup of the USA coming from those people who feel under-represented? Or is the concern being generated by a relatively small group of people who are immersed into that industry and from their high perches think there is a problem.

There is no doubt that African-American, Hispanic Americans or Indigenous people are under- represented on both the large and small +screen. It is equally true that for much of the last century, what roles have been available have frequently portrayed members of the above ethnic groups as being inferior, incompetent and either natural subservient or unreasonably agresive.  What is not clear to me is whether or not people from those ethnic groups go to movies, and if they go - why?

If the answer to whether or not they go to movies is no - then the reason why Hollywood and it satellite cities produce the movies/programs they do is clear. They are producing programs geared to their audience and to maximize their profits. If on the other hand, those groups do go to movies and watch programs that unfairly represent them - then I suspect that there are complex sociological reasons as to why anyone would go to watch people of another race doing thing that may be irrelevant to them.

 

If the problem of lack of diversity was just a matter of people feeling left out, the solution would be simple. Only go to movies that accurately reflect your community. Those who invest in the movie making business - chose what movies to make based of what they think will sell the best. If large blocks of people stop going to movies - the capitalists will change what kind of movies they make.

  

There is however, a more important reason why movies/programs need to reflect our diverse society that has little to do with people feeling left out. If the dominant culture is never exposed to the reality that their culture is not the only culture and that those other cultures are of equal value, then our society will always be dysfunctional and less productive than it can be. Research has shown that companies that embrace and use their diversity are more productive at problem solving (Berkley, Stanford) . We need to have those people be more aware of the world around them and more able to work with all members of that society.

It would be lovely to suggest that such awareness could be developed by schools and by parents. However, given the inordinate number of hours that most children spend in front of a screen, the fact that not only do many parents not share the values of diversity, but even the best parents are consumed with the pressure of work and that schools are already overwhelmed with the number of things they are required to teach - we need to use the mass media.  Whether we like it or not, movies and television programs are frequently the primary (and sometimes only) vehicle to reach and to educate millions of people. Therefore, the movies/programs that we watch must reflect the cultural and ethnic diversity that exists in our society.

 

There is no doubt that the agenda of least some of the people involved in the movie making business understand the issues and why it is important. I however, struggle with the concept that some of the highest paid people in the world - people who do not produce anything except for 130 minutes of entertainment - understand very much about the world that say they want to change. As a group, their industry may be lacking in diversity - I suspect their own personal lives do as well.

Awards Night

Apparently tonight is when the Golden Globe Awards are given away. Even if I had access the right  television station - I would not watch the show. I have never found either the Golden Globe Awards or their slightly larger counterpart - the Academy awards to be that interesting. I do appreciate that hundreds of thousands of people around the English speaking world find the shows interesting entertainment and that for the performers that are being recognized - it is important if for no other reason than award can validate an increased pay check on their next project. But what I do find interesting is the comments from the performers as to the validity of the awards given the lack of diversity within the field and the amount of sexual abuse that has tainted the profession.

Both issues are valid and both should be addressed by everyone associated with those industries - including those who watch the movies or shows. However, it seems to me that the people who are complaining about the limitations of the environments they work in are the very ones who have the power to change how the movie/television industry  functions. For example the individuals who have come forward in the past few months alleging sexual assault from co-workers and directors all have said that they did not report it when it was occurring because they were afraid of what would happen to their careers if they did so. I suspect those professional were absolutely correct in making that assumption. It would appear that actors are as self-centred and as aggressive about their careers as any other profession and many would have no difficulty in replacing another person regardless of why they were deemed to not be suitable. If however, no actor applied for that newly opened position - the movie/show would not go on.  Entire productions would stop until the issue was addressed. I think part of the solution is for members of the actors union to start acting like union members first. If a member alleges assault and then loses their job - then a grievance gets filed and no member of that union applies for that job. That may sound incredibly harsh for everyone to put their jobs on the line to support a fellow union member but it has happened before with great success. Not quickly but changes did occur when union members have place the collective good above their own.

The fact that Canadians only work a 40 hour week, that there are rules as to how employers treat their employees, that there are paid vacations and that the employer must protect employee safety are all the result of workers refusing to work until their place of work became safer etc. Workers and their families went through incredible hardships to get what we now call rights. While no individual actor should have to feel afraid, the collective power of all of their peers could not only support them, but could also ensure that no one else was exposed to those types of action until the issue was addressed. I have no doubt that the corporations behind the productions would move quickly to resolve issues if they were about to lose money. It is great when actors say that they believe their peers who are now more forth coming about the abuse they have faced, but those actors need to be prepared to put their money and their careers on the line much earlier.

I am sure that numerous presenters of the awards tonight (and those who are receiving them) will rant about the abusive system they work in. I wonder how many of them will put their careers on hold to fight that abuse in the future? They may not be responsible for the abuse - but up to now,  they also have not been part of the solution.