Does Donald Trump think the Oscars revile America?

Donald Trump was asked on Fox News on Monday whether two movies were slighted by the Academy Awards because they're pro-American. Politics is swirling around the film awards season like never before.

David J. Phillip/AP/File
Donald Trump, seen in this September 2012 file photo, appeared on Fox News Monday.

Does Donald Trump think the Academy Awards hates America? “Fox & Friends” host Steve Doocy asked the famous real estate mogul/reality-show host that question flat-out on Monday.

First, Mr. Doocy went through a buildup in which he asserted that both “Argo,” a movie about US diplomats escaping from Iran during the 1979 hostage crisis, and “Zero Dark Thirty,” a film about the US hunt for Osama bin Laden, got more love from the Golden Globes than from the Academy Awards. The directors of both these movies were nominated for Golden Globes, he pointed out. (That would be Ben Affleck for “Argo” and Kathryn Bigelow for “Zero Dark Thirty.” Mr. Affleck won.) Yet neither got a nod in that category from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

“Do you think both of those movies are being punished by Oscar because they’re pro-American movies?” Doocy inquired of The Donald, who often appears on the “Fox & Friends” show.

Without hesitation, Mr. Trump shot this theory down. “I don’t think so,” he said. Then he went on to praise NBC for how much it has built up the Golden Globe franchise over the years. (Is it a coincidence that Trump’s own “Celebrity Apprentice” appears on that network? You be the judge.)

Anyway, we’d say that this is one mark for rationality: Both “Argo” and “Zero Dark Thirty” have won an Academy Award Best Picture nomination, after all.

But it’s true that this year, politics is swirling around the film awards season like never before. Look at who appeared as a surprise presenter on the Golden Globe telecast – Bill Clinton.

Or, as host Amy Poehler referred to him, “Hillary Clinton’s husband.”

The 42nd president of the United States introduced a clip of Steven Spielberg’s film “Lincoln,” which depicts the push to abolish slavery through enactment of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution.

“A tough fight to push a bill through a bitterly divided House of Representatives,” Mr. Clinton said in his introduction. “Winning it required the president to make a lot of unsavory deals that had nothing to do with the big issue.”

Then, he paused just a bit before adding, “I wouldn’t know anything about that.”

Was his appearance a subtle pro-Democrat move? Well, unlike Abraham Lincoln, Clinton isn’t a Republican, last we looked. True, he talked about the need for “principle and compromise” to make enduring progress in governing America, which is a suitably bipartisan sentiment. But if the show’s producers had wanted to say “let’s all come together,” they could have had George W. Bush up on stage with him.

Hmm. Memo to Mr. Spielberg: The Oscars aren’t until Feb. 24. That’s just enough time to line up your dream team of presenters – President Obama, plus a hologram of Ronald Reagan.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.