Golden Globe snubs and questionable nominations
Once again, voting bodies demonstrate which stories they are ready to listen to, the ones that will be ignored, and what they deem to be culturally significant as opposed to audiences and critics.
Source: HBO
There is only so much change you can feel in the air, especially when it comes to awards season as it truly tests the limitations and borders of these institutions. I felt jubilation when I found out that three women were nominated for the Best Director at the Golden Globes (Chloé Zhao for “Nomadland”, Emerald Fennell for “Promising Young Woman” and Regina King for “One Night in Miami…”) and two of them are women of colour. Those nominations are a huge change in their own right, but when perusing through the other categories, there are some extremely questionable nominations and snubs. “Emily in Paris” received nominations, while “I May Destroy You”, “Minari” and “Da 5 Bloods” were all snubbed; together, they represent how voting bodies are only listening to certain stories, at certain moments, from certain people.
In short, “Emily in Paris” gives viewers an insight into a marketing influencer’s attempt to get her Parisian counterparts to like her. It is a classic example of a show that has been created to binge for the momentary pleasure of the viewer and for the streaming service to keep a customer on their platform. The title of the show itself is a reminder of the classic film by MGM, “An American in Paris” (1951), which follows a former G.I. turned artist from America in Paris. It is one of my favourite films in the way it presents Paris during the 1950s as a beautiful city, even after the war. Although, like many other cities, Paris has changed and “Emily in Paris” has not changed with it.
“An American in Paris” follows the experience of a white man in the city, while “Emily in Paris” uses this same gaze but through the eyes of its titular female protagonist. Their gazes are reminders of the city’s beauty and romantic nature. However, this is not the Paris that exists in reality, especially in Emily’s case. Paris has transformed into a multicultural city that is diverse in its people and its aesthetics, yet we get limited view of the city from the confines of the more affluent arrondissements. Hollywood is in this affair with Paris, they wear rose-tinted glasses with her, and always present her as this gorgeous and romantic escape for those who seek a passionate love and pretty clothes.
Stories like “An American in Paris” and “Emily in Paris” are about expatriation, not immigration. When these narratives appear, we already know this is for the white foreigner and their fantasies of the city. Therefore, they are easier to award since they share the same gaze. “Emily in Paris” is a more palatable alternative to the plethora of productions that revolves around the white male psyche. For awards season, “Emily in Paris” is viewed as subversive enough, but “I May Destroy You” is clearly too subversive for awarding bodies. The writers from “Emily in Paris” agree with this sentiment, with Deborah Copaken openly expressing the issues with “I May Destroy You” not receiving any nominations on Twitter and in The Guardian.
Hollywood is also ready to hear stories about the aftermath of sexual assault, but they are not necessarily ready to listen to the stories outside of the white gaze. “Promising Young Woman” has been nominated for awards, while “I May Destroy You” was snubbed. Carey Mulligan’s performance and Emerald Fennell’s direction in “Promising Young Woman” are excellent and I enjoyed the film. However, Michaela Coel’s writing and presentation of sexual assault is revolutionary. These choices demonstrate how awarding bodies are only ready to listen to some stories and will continue to ignore others.
Michaela Coel used her own trauma to demonstrate the complex nature of consent and the lack of linearity in recovering from sexual assault. “I May Destroy You” presented a new angle on the discourse around rape culture and how healing from it can be incomplete. “Promising Young Woman”, on the other hand, shows that a woman can be avenged eventually, even if it hurts her in the process, and that there will be an ending in sight. “I May Destroy You” makes no such promises. Coel reminds us that justice does not always exist for people who have been sexually assaulted. Going beyond race and diverse representation, “I May Destroy You” is a moment of genius. We cannot move beyond viewing race this way in awarding bodies and it is a shame because Coel’s work, among others, should not be based on skin colour. Rather, it should be judged by how good the work is. However, the awarding bodies do not share the same vision Coel had for the show.
It was great to find Riz Ahmed’s nomination for “Sound of Metal” and Chadwick Boseman’s for “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom” as they were both brilliant performances. So, why was Steven Yuen’s performance in “Minari'' snubbed? And more importantly, how did James Corden receive one? I can’t decide which one offends me more. James Corden’s performance in “The Prom'' was stereotypical and offensive in his portrayal of the LGBTQ+ community; he is a straight man who uses cartoonishly effeminate mannerisms and that role should have gone to a gay actor. Therefore, it is especially hard to understand the reasoning behind James Corden’s nomination when Yuen’s performance in “Minari'' reminds immigrants (alongside descendants of immigrants like myself) that the discourse around displacement is shifting. We are moving away from how we measure that level of belongingness to the complexities around how we can be viewed and presented as nuanced people in a globalised society.
“Minari” was produced by an American company, used an American director and cast a Korean-American actor as the protagonist. With these snubs, it is increasingly clear that these awarding bodies were prepared to look at class consciousness and critiques of it in “Parasite”, but the white gaze is not necessarily ready for questions beyond displacement when it comes to immigration. After all, based on these nomination snubs, the white gaze witnesses expatriation rather than immigration.
Another performance that was snubbed is Delroy Lindo’s performance in “Da 5 Bloods”. In this circumstance, it is about how the white gaze looks at male trauma. How many times have awarding bodies given awards to those who have unpacked the ‘angry and hurt white man’? There are too many to count. “Da 5 Bloods” was a space where the traumas and memories of Black veterans could be unpacked, but that critical thinking is not valued by the Golden Globes.
It is the similar case with “I May Destroy You” - white trauma is considered as being more important and the emotions around it will be analysed and also valued. When you are a person of colour, it becomes increasingly clear how the white gaze wants to view you. Films like “Da 5 Bloods” and shows like “I May Destroy You” serve as trauma porn. The presentation of trauma from a person of colour is a temporary spectacle. It temporarily serves a person’s rehearsed sense of ‘wokeness’.
Awards should be given based on merit, not out of tokenism or because they do not understand stories beyond the white gaze, but because awarding bodies genuinely recognise that these works deserve recognition and praise. These nominations and snubs are indicative of the structural problems in awarding institutions. The white man’s anger, the white woman’s journey around sexual assault, and the focus on fantasies of expatriation rather than the changing discourse on the representation of race; these stories will be listened to, the others will be ignored, and awarding bodies select the ones that they will deem culturally relevant. In the case of the Golden Globes, Hollywood and its awarding institutions are not ready to consider minority ethnic and Black stories as universal.