I’m interested in how people think accusations of sexual harassment and misconduct should affect awards like the Oscars. Sony has a contender for the Oscars in its big Ridley Scott directed pic about the J. Paul Getty Jr kidnapping, All The Money in the World. The actor playing John Paul Getty Sr is rumored to have given a career-best performance and would definitely be favorite to grab the Oscar for Best Actor. That actor is (you guessed it) Kevin Spacey.
Of course there is no way in heaven or earth that he’s going to get that Oscar now. My question is why should that be? I don’t mean why won’t he get it, I mean why shouldn’t he get it? A great performance is surely a great performance, irrespective of the morals or attitude of who’s giving it. Say Daniel Day Lewis had been embroiled in a sex scandal at the time of There Will Be Blood or Lincoln. Would those performances suddenly be seen as crap and unworthy of an Oscar?
I suppose the real question is are we incapable of separating the work from the person behind it and it’s clear the answer is that we are. If Hitler had painted the Mona Lisa would it be any less one of the greatest paintings in history? Wagner did compose the Ring cycle operas and others and he was a racist asshole. The works still overwhelm me though and are supremely powerful and beautiful.
To sum up I think we should learn to judge art as art without constantly seeing the face of the artist in it. If Spacey’s performance is as great as they say it is then he should get the Oscar. The fact that he may not be able to accept it personally because of prison rules is neither here nor there.
Would Dopers agree or do you believe that awards should be at least partly about the moral stature of nominees with the trophy going to not necessarily the best performance but the best performance by the least reprehensible person?
The people who vote for the Oscars don’t want to be seen either as voting for an asshole, or by doing so, endorsing his behavior. The Oscars themselves, divorced from the movies themselves, just the whole Oscar ceremony, is a moneymaker. It’s already influenced by things other than who gave the best performance. Indie films hardly ever get nominations, because they don’t play in as many theaters, and most importantly, they don’t play much in non-coastal states, which is where most Oscar viewers are.
You don’t want to piss off the people who watch the Oscar ceremonies on TV. Nominating Spacey, let alone giving him the award, would probably piss off the people who watch the awards, and lead to fewer people watching the awards.
These are not small considerations.
There are other factors too-- back in the studio system days, there were a few free-lance actors, that is, performers who refused to sign studio contracts, and would sign only one or two film and a time contracts, and usually films by title. These were always extraordinarily popular people who could afford to get away with this, because they were “bankable”-- their name on a marquee guaranteed lines around the block. These actors, somehow, never won Oscars, though, because studios advertised for their actors when they were nominated, and non-contract players didn’t have big advertising budgets behind their nominations. That’s home people like Cary Grant and Irene Dunne (consistently voted Most Popular in Photoplay) never won an Oscar.
What? You didn’t know that studios launched massive advertising campaigns directed at the people who vote for the Oscars? They sure do. That means that if Spacey were somehow to get nominated, the studio would need to push for his vote. They’d have to pour a lot of money into trying to get people to vote for him. What is the ad copy going to look like? “Vote the performance, not the actor!” It may be that the studio will decide Spacey is a wash, and not to put any money behind Spacey’s nomination, and let’s say the film itself, or the director is nominated. They may put their money there, and hope for the Oscar in one of those categories, that way, they can still put “OSCAR WINNER!” in the ads.
The Academy is honoring both the performance and the performer with the award. It’s perfectly reasonable for them to decide that a great person gave a mediocre performance or a great performance was delivered by a terrible person - and in either case, to withhold the award.
Should criminals receive awards and money for their non-criminal activities?
Should artists be excused the responsibility for being law-abiding citizens? Not saying decent human beings, just law-abiding?
Is the perception of a work of art altered by knowledge of what the artist is like?
I will not ask, does the cultural fact that sexual crimes, by men against women and homosexuals, are often seen as barely crimes at all, despite laws, influence this particular OP?
It’s not a real competition with objective winners, it’s a big hurrah for Hollywood. This is not like taking away a Superbowl win, it literally IS a popularity contest.
Pretty sure homosexuals are not the only male victims of sexual assault.
I personally don’t care whether or not Kevin Spacey gets an Oscar. I am generally pretty good at disconnecting the individual from the creation, unless that individual’s nastiness is infused in their creation somehow. I know the Oscars is largely political bullshit so I don’t expect them to embrace socially controversial actors, but if it were up to me I’d try to keep the art separate from bad deeds.
I’ve never seen Chinatown but the only real reservation I would have about watching it would be if it financially benefitted Polansky the child rapist somehow. I don’t want him to have my money. But if it’s a damned good movie it should be recognized as one.
It seems that we know too much about actors and their private lives today to be able to be truly objective about their performances. Awards shows today are a strange combination of actual appreciation for the calibre of a performance and a blatant popularity contest. Does it work the same for people behind the scenes? Do we add past indiscretions to the person running for best costume designer or best sound design? Methinks not, and we definitely seem to hold actors to an impossibly high standard. It’s a good thing drug use is acceptable or no one would be eligible for anything.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The academy is made of human beings, that’s it. We are/they are, just people, who cannot ignore truly repugnant behaviours. (As varied as they manifest, different times, changing cultures etc.)
I don’t feel it’s necessary for anyone, at the academy or otherwise, to beat themselves up for being human, and, as such, having tender feelings.
These awards have actually never been about who gave the actual best performance. Sometimes they accidentally line up, but mostly it’s who has the power and momentum.
I think Kevin Spacey has done some great acting work, for sure. And actors have never been, personally, any nicer than ordinary people. Possibly even less likely to be good people. But that’s not how it’s going to shake out, I would bet. It’s who’s in favor.
Kevin Spacey is probably not gonna be in favor. Just a guess.
I understand why they don’t give the Oscars to bad people, it’s human nature, they don’t want to honor an asshole. Maybe there should be a separate category or categories: Best Performance by an Asshole in a Leading Role. “The nominees are Kevin Spacey, Dustin Hoffman, Steven Seagal.” Then of course there’s the Honorary Oscar for Lifetime Achievement which goes to Harvey Weinstein for all the young actresses he has helped himself to. It might actually liven up the evening and make the Oscars watchable again.
Not what the OP was asking about, but I told Mr. Rilch last night that I still want to see All the Money In the World, despite Spacey being in it. “What’s the harm?” I said. “He’ll probably never be cast in anything again.” Because all these accusations are from fellow cast members, not just random people. Rob Lowe, Hugh Grant…their scandals were about things they did on their own time, with people outside the industry. From here on in, producers will figure they can’t cast KS, even if he’s willing to work for scale, because no one of any age, gender or orientation wants to be in the same room with him.
I have a feeling you may be overstating the issue here just a tad bit. For one thing, Spacey has already apologized to Anthony Rapp, even though he doesn’t remember the incident, which is a pretty humbling thing to do. I don’t know about the other accusers, but it seems like a bandwagon thing right now. Nothing has been proven or disproven. Why can’t people avoid rushing to judgement in cases like this?