Entertainment Executives Want to Play Ball With Trump. The Stars Who Work for Them May Have a Different Idea

by

At an awards ceremony, it’s often tempting for winners to overshare during their speeches. The famous “I’m liked! I’m really liked!” from an Oscar acceptance speech is a classic example of this. However, it’s less common to encounter a speech that conveys more than what’s explicitly stated. And yet, that’s exactly what transpired during the Golden Globe Awards on Sunday evening when the team behind “Emilia Pérez” accepted the award for best motion picture – comedy or musical. The speech seemed to hint at deeper, unsaid emotions and experiences.

Earlier in the evening, Jacques Audiard, the director of the film, had delivered an extended speech that was a bit awkward and hard to understand due to translation issues as he accepted the Best Director award. Now, with a hat reminiscent of an old golfer’s cap, Audiard appeared at a loss for words. “I must admit,” he said via a translator, “I didn’t prepare anything.” In a seemingly impromptu action, Audiard invited his leading actress, Karla Sofía Gascón, a trans actress, to join him on stage. While she seemed hesitant, it was clear that she had rehearsed for this moment.

As I stood there, draped in the peaceful hues of Buddhist robes, I took a deep breath and began. In a hushed tone, I shared that I believed the light would ultimately triumph over the shadows. It may not be the battle cry of “No justice, no peace!”, but the message was clear. The crowd responded with thunderous applause, urging me to continue. With a heavy heart, I admitted, “There’s much I’ve wanted to tell you.

She asserted that they might imprison or physically harm them, but what they can’t seize is their soul, their individuality, and their very existence. In a remarkable way, her words seemed applicable to everyone, not just trans individuals. Indeed, one could argue that she was speaking for all of us. With passion, she urged, “Speak up!” – which, due to her accent, sounded more like “Roar your voice.” Another happy coincidence! Later on, she concluded emphatically, “I am who I am…not who you desire me to be.” This was a powerful statement of defiance. While her message primarily focused on the dignity and rights of trans people, it also carried an underlying tone: the resistance will persist, even in the face of adversity, as exemplified by this event two weeks before Donald Trump’s inauguration.

Interestingly, that message might not have been primarily directed towards Trump and his supporters, but rather at the film corporations producing movies such as “Emilia Pérez.” This is because they’ve been staunchly opposing the opposition more than anyone else.

A hint of unease among those controlling the entertainment sector about a potential Trump win and potential consequences was evident eight months ago at the Cannes Film Festival. The buzz around “The Apprentice,” a biopic starring Sebastian Stan as Trump and Jeremy Strong as his manipulative advisor Roy Cohn, was so strong that no distribution company wanted to touch it. This mystery was solved when people realized that companies were worried about a Trump victory. They didn’t want to be on the wrong side of this; they had no desire to release a movie highlighting the questionable journey of how Trump became who he is (the deceit, the betrayal, and more).

In the end, ‘The Apprentice’ secured a distributor (Briarcliff Entertainment). However, when the movie was finally released on October 11th, the hype surrounding it had been significantly dampened. At that moment, I noted that nothing in ‘The Apprentice’ was as eerie as the hardships it faced to be distributed. In essence, it felt like it was on the brink of being nearly shelved – not due to political intervention but due to capitalist obstacles, which can be just as formidable.

There are indications across the business world suggesting some corporations are keen to align with Trump. For instance, at the Sun Valley Conference in July, David Zaslav, CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery, hinted that a president friendly to mergers and deregulation in the entertainment sector was his top priority. This could be interpreted as a covert endorsement of Trump. Similarly, Amazon’s decision to license an upcoming documentary about Melania Trump, with Melania herself serving as executive producer, might be seen as a subtle show of support. Furthermore, the fact that Brett Ratner, a director discredited by sexual misconduct allegations, has been given another chance in the industry through directing the Melania film, seems to point towards a softer stance on such issues during the Trump era. Lastly, Pixar’s decision to remove a trans character from its upcoming series “Win or Lose” might be indicative of a shift in attitudes that could be associated with the new Trump administration.

When linking these seemingly unrelated occurrences, it becomes apparent the shape of a company emerges, whose management seems intent on fostering harmony, both culturally and economically, with an administration that has openly expressed its antagonism towards the entertainment sector.

In simpler terms, the industry that once thrived might be facing internal disagreements with its key personnel. To put it metaphorically, one could say the Golden Globes event was relatively quiet politically this year. The usual lively atmosphere returned, with Brady Corbet being the most vocal, advocating for film directors to have full creative control over their projects. Nikki Glaser, the host known for her boldness, steered clear of discussing the recent Blake Lively/Justin Baldoni controversy. This could be due to the current state of uncertainty, as Trump is no longer president but hasn’t regained the position either.

Suppose Trump carries out some of his promised actions soon after being inaugurated on January 20, such as pardoning those involved in the Capitol riot, taking initial steps towards handing Ukraine over to Vladimir Putin, or initiating mass deportations of immigrants. If these events transpire, the Academy Awards ceremony on March 2 will not be a subdued event; instead, it will likely be filled with resistance and possibly even unrest.

It’s common practice to criticize actors and filmmakers for using their acceptance speeches at events like the Oscars to express political views. While some of this criticism is valid—as it can appear self-serving or dull—there are instances when it carries great significance. In a society where corporations, which hold immense power over information, seem more and more obliged to appease political figures, it’s crucial for voices to be heard. Hollywood actors may not directly shape policy, but they can defend the realm of art and entertainment as a sanctuary for free expression. By doing so, they might be pushing their corporate masters to uphold similar values.

Read More

2025-01-07 19:47