Oscars: Black Hollywood’s long climb continues

Episode transcript

Clay Collins: Welcome to Why We Wrote This. I’m Clay Collins. 

[MUSIC]

Collins: Commentator Ken Makin was last on this show back in December. He talked about “peaks and valleys” in terms of Black representation in Hollywood. Most of this encore episode is a replay of the conversation that he had with us then, because frankly, a lot of it holds up really well. We’re talking again now as we head into the weekend of the Academy Awards.

Hi Ken! Thanks for coming back.

Ken Makin: Clay, how’s it going?

Collins: Good. Let’s look at some Academy Award nominations and some films that got passed over. The “Black Panther” franchise update, “Wakanda Forever,” is up for five awards. The always remarkable Angela Bassett has been nominated for Best Supporting Actress. 

Makin: Well deserved. 

Collins: But it was a nope for “Nope” by Jordan Peele. And Viola Davis did not get a Best Actress nod. “Till”, for all of its power and all of its cultural relevance, no nominations. So let’s start with Viola Davis, who of course starred in “The Woman King.” A decorated actor. Already has an Oscar for “Fences” in 2016. An Emmy. Two Tony Awards. What’s your take on her being left out of the Oscar’s race this year?

Makin: It’s unconscionable. “The Woman King” certainly presented an element of triumph [for] Viola Davis. Her performance ran the gamut of emotions. Certainly there was strength. There was vulnerability. I thought she balanced all of those emotions very well. She has said in the past that colorism, she believes, has kept her from receiving certain roles in Hollywood. I’m just very disappointed in not seeing her receive that nomination.

Collins: Hmm. And then there was “Till.”  There’s that point when Danielle Deadwyler, playing Emmett Till’s mother, talks about her son’s murder as being “the business of us all.” Another exhibition of such power and social confrontation of wrongs. Does the lack of Oscar recognition for that film really blunt the cultural impact? Does it mean more than just [that] fewer people might take the award as a cue to pay attention to the film?

Makin: Those snubs, it’s not just a function of prestige, it’s a function of power. And when we speak about that power, we have to understand, you know, contractual obligations ... negotiating. There’s a difference in saying “Oscar winner from 2016” versus “Oscar winner 2022.” And that’s the thing I think that is lost so often. Award shows basically are proximity to power: to financial power, to earning potential. And so for an actress such as Miss Deadwyler to miss out on that opportunity, you’re in some ways messing with her opportunity to get more roles. 

Collins: Ken, I want to yield to the earlier podcast conversation, in which you made some really interesting points about this particular arc of progress. What else would you like to say by way of updating that episode? Is it still peaks and valleys? And you know, frankly, are you hopeful?

Makin: I remain hopeful. Black people, like, we dictate the culture in so many ways, particularly as it relates to entertainment, and that influence is undeniable. I am also frustrated because the influence that I continue to speak about does not yield the awards from the institutions that have so much power in Hollywood. I’ve spoken in the past about the power of the NAACP Image Awards and awards that celebrate Black artists, but also, you know, have a Black governing body in that way. But I also understand that the power dynamics are different when you talk about the Oscars versus the NAACP Image Awards. That’s something that we can’t trivialize, and that is why there’s so much disappointment when it comes to Black actors being left out of the nomination process, much less having an opportunity to win.

Collins: Well, I’ll certainly be watching the broadcast with this conversation in mind, Ken. I just want to thank you very much for coming back on and for your contributions to the Monitor.

Makin: Most certainly and likewise, Clay. Take care.  

Collins: Thanks again, Ken! Let’s now go back and listen to the conversation that you had in December with Samantha Laine Perfas for this show.

 [MUSIC]

Samantha Laine Perfas: I’m Samantha Laine Perfas. I’m joined by Ken Makin, a Monitor contributor and host of the podcast “Makin’ A Difference.” Thanks for joining me, Ken.

Ken Makin: Sam, glad to be with you. How’s it going?

Laine Perfas: It’s good. So to start the conversation, I’m wondering if you would consider 2022 a “tipping point” in terms of diversity in Hollywood.

Makin: I would really look at it more as there’s a path to progress. But I would say there are more peaks and valleys. And one of the main things I always talk about when looking at Hollywood is I always look at fan response, and the fan responses to “The Little Mermaid,” for example, to Moses Ingram’s role in “Star Wars” and seeing some of the visceral and negative responses to that. Those are very troubling. It’s so problematic when I hear about fans who have an issue with “The Little Mermaid” being African American, like, understand these are fictional characters. And so what type of destiny does it create? What type of barriers do we create when we say that a fictional character should look this way or a fictional character can’t be this. At the same time, it’s great to see that same production studio, I’m talking about Disney, it’s good to see, you know, them speak out and rebuke some of those negative fan comments and such. And really continue to commit themselves to seeing diverse characters, not only diverse in terms of news stories, but even in retelling some of the stories that we love and that we’re familiar with, introducing characters of color, introducing Black characters. I think that’s very important.

Laine Perfas: You mentioned the “Star Wars” franchise, and actually back in June, you wrote about it that it has a long, complicated relationship with race, similar to Hollywood in general. Could you talk a little bit about that?

Makin: The challenge with “Star Wars,” I think historically, was seeing Black characters in prominent roles. And that’s something that here more recently, you know, we’ve seen change for the better. In terms of “Star Wars,” I go back to Moses Ingram, who played Reva (Third Sister). It’s great to see “Star Wars” making a commitment to having Black characters as an integral part of the plot. And that’s something that, you know, we did not see previously.

Laine Perfas: I’m thinking about another genre of movies, and that’s the horror film genre. And Jordan Peele’s “Nope” came out this year, and you watched it and you actually did watch it two times to fully appreciate it. Could you talk about what happened there and what was it about “Nope” that was unexpected for you?

Makin: Loved “Nope.” I loved it the second time around. I can say the first time that I had an expectation to see overt analysis, whether it be an analysis of race or an analysis of class. “Get Out” was a movie that did an exemplary job of looking at race and looking at it in a very nuanced sense. “Us” was a movie that movie-watchers were expecting “Us” to be like “Get Out” and it wasn’t – it was more of a class analysis. And so I was looking for that same type of overt analysis with “Nope” and didn’t get it at first. And so in looking for that and in pursuing that, I really missed what Jordan Peele was trying to accomplish with that movie. And what Jordan Peele did, first and foremost, was that he approached that movie as someone who loves the genre of film making. And so there were callbacks to blaxploitation, there were callbacks to, you know, just some of his favorite directors. So when I went back the second time and watched that movie, I appreciated the attention to detail. And within that understanding that, hey, Jordan Peele did have cultural analysis, did have racial analysis. It just wasn’t something that was so overt. And in doing that, that gave him a type of creative freedom.

Laine Perfas: It was cool to see how Jordan Peele tipped his hat to other people in the industry who’ve had a really strong impact. And I’m also thinking of another legacy this year that came to the forefront, and that’s of Chadwick Boseman in “Wakanda Forever.” You articulated it well when you said that movie in many ways was a love letter to Chad. How did that movie nod to his legacy as a Black actor?

Makin: What Ryan Coogler was able to accomplish in “Wakanda Forever” is to simultaneously show just what Boseman’s loss to that franchise meant, but also understand what it means to be the Black Panther. And what the Black Panther represents – that the Black Panther represents progression, however painful. And Coogler just, you know, captured so many ideas visually, politically, socially, and did that without ever trivializing or losing the fact that Chad was his friend first. It was so humanizing and yet it was just, you know, a celebration of royalty and of friendship and mourning in that same vein.

Laine Perfas: I think sometimes Hollywood and really the media at large have struggled to show loss in a humanizing way. And I know you’ve talked in the past about how it also in some ways capitalizes on Black trauma. This year, also a movie about Emmett Till came out and you reviewed “Till.” How did you feel that movie tackled such a traumatic event with nuance?

Makin: “Till” was a challenging watch. Initially, I was very skeptical about going to see the movie. You know, I had attributed, you know, what you’re alluding to in terms of the capitalization of Black trauma. You know, I call it the trauma industrial complex, which that fearful element speaks to, that, you know, that trepidation. And so that’s what I felt. Certainly what changed for me was a statement that was made by the director, and the director committed to not so much focusing on the brutality and the trauma of Emmett Till’s murder, but looking at the strength and the dignity and the honor of Mamie Till-Mobley, who was Emmett Till’s mother. It just speaks to that continuing tug and pull of civil rights, which is something that you’re always going to have, that when you talk about civil rights, there is no progress without struggle, certainly.

Laine Perfas: Looking forward into 2023. Is there anything that makes you hopeful that the movie industry will continue to expand its offerings and tell more diverse stories?

Makin: What makes me hopeful is the clamoring and the presence of Black people; Black people on social media, Black people in the community. And it really just speaks to activism and conscientiousness. When you think about Black actors and the legacy of Black storytelling in Hollywood, that has been an arduous road. It’s a road that’s been traveled on for many decades. One of the things that makes me hopeful is that as we talk about, again, peaks and valleys, you can see the progress. You can see going from having no representation in Hollywood at all to having a limited and sometimes controversial representation to now having attention to detail and humanizing elements. I’m always hopeful because Black people throughout history, like we’re so creative and we dictate culture in that way.

Laine Perfas: Thank you so much, Ken, for sharing your thoughts today.

Makin: Thank you, Sam, for having me.

[MUSIC]

Collins: Thanks for listening to this encore episode, which included material from a show that ran on Dec. 16, 2022. You can find all of our episodes at csmonitor.com/WhyWeWroteThis, or wherever you listen to podcasts. We welcome ratings and reviews. This episode was hosted by me, Clay Collins, and produced by Jingnan Peng. Samantha Laine Perfas hosted the December show. Alyssa Britton was our engineer in both cases. Our original music is by Noel Flatt. Produced by The Christian Science Monitor. Copyright 2023.