|
Opinion The Message of Hollywood is English Only  THE recent awards season has brought up conversations that needed to be had in regards to the way we as film financers, creators, and audiences consume one of the biggest forms of media in the world. The key words there, are "in the world", as film is undoubtedly an experience that crosses cultures, country divides, and languages. We all know this, and yet; why do we still inject very firm boundaries between the way we treat certain films and when do we have the conversation about how detrimental those boundaries are to diversity and inclusion as a whole? Let me be clear: I'm speaking about the westernized view of film creation, appreciation, and notoriety; and how inherently divisive our current Americanized models have become. In a world where we are pushing ourselves to break thoughts on stereotypes and redefine media representation, it's just as important that when it comes time to praise these exceptional works of film, that we start looking at them all from a grand and equal lens, instead of tucking some away if they don't fit our western criteria. So when did we set up these divides? If we know that film doesn't belong to any one culture or language, then when did we consciously build structures to unequally and unfairly categorize these works? On the surface, one might say that putting a "foreign film" in the category of "foreign film" is simply being logical or factual. It's important, however, to understand the gentle and not so gentle predilections and prejudices that these classifications create. The firmest example comes from the recent awards circuit, where films such as 'Nomadland', 'Judas and the Black Messiah' and 'Minari' have turned heads and the Big Ones in media acknowledgement have proffered award after award. Might I say, all deserved the awards they have been nominated and given. The point of this piece is not to question if these films deserve their critical acclaim, but to evaluate how we go about handing out those accolades. In a news release by Variety showcasing the BAFTA Film Awards nominations, editors chose to use 'Nomadland' and 'Rocks' as standouts in the headline -- due to the overwhelming 7 nominations that each film now possesses. Followed closely behind with six nominations is the strong contender 'Minari'. 'Minari' doesn't get a headline mention due it falling short by one nomination to be in the lead. But if you look closely, 'Minari' wouldn't get a headline mention at all, due to the prejudice we already place on English films. The excellence of 'Minari' is undeniable, as it is somehow spotlighted on Variety's Oscar predictions list for Best Picture, even though Hollywood only recently broke records and gave the award to a non-English film (South Korean film 'Parasite''s surprising but definitely well-earned Best Picture win in 2020). Despite six nominations with the BAFTAS, 'Minari' was not included for Best Picture at The Golden Globes, and this was for a specific reason. Actor Steven Yeun knew this was coming, because of a set of antiquated rules that automatically disavow a film from being considered for these accolades if it isn't an English speaking film. I've heard the argument that American based awards ceremonies should focus on American cinema, naturally (and I won't actually get into the irony of this statement and the fact that the voting panel for the Globes calls themselves the Hollywood Foreign Press). It's hard to offer recognition to every single country in the world that creates film; I understand that a scope that large would be too big a project to take on for an American-born award system. So then, the real question becomes, why is 'Minari', a film made by Colorado-born director Lee Isaac Chung, featuring a Korean-American actor, and taking place in the American South excluded from any category that is implicitly skewed to spotlight American cinema? If non-English is their problem, then they might have even more problems on various streets and neighborhoods of New York, at your local bodega in the Bronx, in Chinatown restaurants in Los Angeles, perusing French Creole shops in the gulf states. When we exclude these films for not "being English enough", we tell the world that exemplary films are defined by this one language. As Esquire discusses in an article about the Golden Globes, we tell filmmakers and creatives that their stories won't even be considered from the get-go. We tell audiences to appreciate films about English speakers more than any other. We convince filmmakers that in order to tell their story and get the recognition they deserve, their story needs to be white. And for an industry that really needs to work on its diversity issues, this is not the message that we should be sending to the entire world. The responsibility of inclusion falls on the higher ups, the people in charge, the people with power and privilege (people like me, a white American male director in Hollywood). Antiquated systems of exclusion cannot be allowed to permeate the way that we treat films. The world of cinema belongs to us all, but we can only begin to express that when we start allowing equality to define the way we praise phenomenal work -- of all languages, of all backgrounds, of all people. 
|