When Performance Overcomes Historical Importance

"Cinemas form memories and memories form history," observed Ukrainian film director Mstyslav Chernov during his acceptance speech for winning the Oscar for Best Documentary at Sunday's Academy Awards show. His powerful condemnation of Russia's invasion of Ukraine resonated throughout the Dolby Theater in Los Angeles. 

But for me it also touched on how some cinemas or the subjects they attempt to portray can fade from memory and history if the discerning and capricious spotlight shown on them from the Academy and the audience is affected or shifted in any way, no matter how slight. 

Everyone acclaims the value of the recognition of receiving the prestigious Oscar award, but there are layers of reasons why it is important and how it is important. Also, for whom is it important.

For many actors, it is the ultimate acknowledgment of their ability as an actor, director, producer, etc. But for others, like me, it is an opportunity to recognize something historical; a moment in time or a movement; something that is spoken for by the actor/actress nominated for the award. In an era where the importance of history seems to recede further into the shadows of time, events like winning an Oscar award can do much to solidify one's standing in the always-shifting sands of public sentiment and recollection. 

Lily Gladstone, proudly assumed the role of being the first Blackfeet Indian (Niitsitapie) and Nez Pearce (Nimíipuu) to be nominated for an Oscar award for Best Actress for her brilliant, human, bilingual, and nuanced depiction of Mollie Burkhart, the Osage Indiana who was the victim of a horrendous serious of murders in Oklahoma in 1929. Her role in Martin Scorcese's masterful film "Killers of the Flower Moon" exposes the Reign of Terror that had been hidden in the dustbins of American history for years. 

Had she won for Best Actress award, or if the film had won any award, it would have helped cement the tragedy of the Reign of Terror in the collective conscience of the American persona. For many, this was not just about the best physical performance before a camera, but rather the portrayal of a voice echoing quietly from the past that needed to be heard and understood. The eventual winner, Emma Stone, received the award for her technical prowess in bringing to life Bella, a modern-day re-imagining of Frankenstein, In short, the Academy needed to decide between awarding historical relevance and skilled performance and they chose the safer option. No one, of course, can demean Stone's performance, but for me, Gladstone's effort had more cultural value and historical flavor and was meant to serve as an anchor to avoid the Osage historical tragedy from being swept away by the currents of history. As James LaRue, noted librarian and consultant observed, "cancellation can happen by distraction." And while we cannot say that the Academy hoped to cancel the luminous importance of "Killers of the Flower Moon", they drastically dimmed the light that Mr. Scorcese, Ms. Gladstone, and the team of the film so effectively displayed on this historical moment. The over-extended "rivalry" between "Oppenheimer" and "Barbie" did not help either. But I do hope that down the road, people will still remember this film and its subject. If not, future directors may have to hire Emma Stone to play a Native American Indian. Maybe that will work! 😊

Sadly, the Academy is not ready yet to award an Oscar to a Native American Indian; they have much work to do. But at the very least they allowed Osage musicians and singers to peform on stage during the ceremony.