Will "The Slap" Smack Some Sense Into Us? - Oscars 2022 Reaction

Dubbed "the slap heard 'round the world", "the slap" actually tells us something about politics, political activists, and our (pretend) "national dialogue".

Having long lost interest in the Academy Awards twenty plus years ago, I caught bits and pieces of the show. I just so happened to be watching when Will Smith attacked presenter and comedian Chris Rock, by slapping him on stage, as Smith walked away with a smug smirk on his face back to his seat. I sincerely wasn't sure what just happened. The slap looked staged. Was this a comedy bit that went over my head? The audio went out for a pretty long time and I could read Smith's lips and he wasn't wishing Chris Rock a happy birthday. It took a while but it finally dawned on me, that was real! Will Smith actually walked on stage and slapped Chris Rock! Will the Academy stop at nothing for ratings!

As petty as the incident may have seemed - two wealthy celebrities slapping each other. It did expose (yet again) something about our society and the way the "movers and shakers" discuss issues. What immediately came to my mind is we are a society that is forever looking for the "gray" in a situation. We are a country comprised of politicians and activists that speak like Tevye - the lead character from "Fiddler on the Roof", constantly juggling an issue (on the other hand...) twisting ourselves in knots to explain and sometimes excuse behavior. 

My gut tells me the politicians and activists are simply opportunists, forever trying to seize and latch on to the political and social winds of the times. Always trying to exploit an issue in such a way that it legitimizes and solidifies the importance of the very cause they champion. But by doing this we have become a society incapable and / or unwilling to simply defend what is "right" and condemn what is "wrong".

Which leads me to my second issue. If people weren't such hypocrites and opportunists, if they simply said what they believe to be true and not take advantage of an opportunity to capitalize upon it for their own gain, you'll never look bad. Your thoughts will always display a consistent logic. But politicians and political activists don't seem to have a moral foundation. They have no core beliefs other than pushing and advancing their cause and make statements which suit their purpose in the moment. Even if it means they contradict themselves from their previous statements.

What Will Smith did at the Academy Awards was wrong. END. OF. STORY. It is not okay to hit someone because of a joke. Individuals at an award ceremony should remain in their seats and not leave their seat to slap, kick, punch, spit on, or engage in ANY contact with a presenter other than to accept the award they are being given. SIMPLE. I make this statement because it is what I believe to be true. It reflects my sense of right and wrong and the values I was raised to believe by my parents. It is a statement that 20 years from now will stand the test of time. No one will read this and say "WOW! This is so dated! Can you believe in 2022 someone actually thought it wasn't okay to slap someone for telling a joke? It was a different time back than." And it is a standard I can hold all accountable to. Hopefully an incident like this will never happen again at an award ceremony but I would still say it was wrong even if it was a white man who did it or a woman, an Asian person, a Hispanic person, gay, straight, whatever!

And yet. Many people confused the issue. They complicated it. They searched for the gray in a sea of black and white. Tiffany Haddish, a comedian I like very much, was present at the Oscars and called what Will Smith did "beautiful". She invoked race stating what she saw was a black man defending his wife. This deflects from the issue. Now you have made it a racial issue and anyone that condemns Smith must now have the stigma placed upon them that they have criticized not merely the act but a black man. In its own way it is clever and that is what activists do (I am not saying Haddish is a political activist, just to be clear). They deflect. As an activist you always want to control the conversation. You want to discuss the issue on your terms. You define the context. And race has become the dominant political topic. It also shuts down debate. Who wants to be labeled a "racist", which now has an ever widening and broad definition. I've always said, usually in reference to dating, if I am going to get in trouble regardless of what I said or didn't say, I'd rather get in trouble for not saying something. You can't erase words once spoken. And you can't make someone forget what was said. Although it may sound sexist, the reality is every man knows your wife or girlfriend will remember whatever you said in a moment of anger and bring it up until the day you die. And even than she may drop you a note from time to time. Point being, when people feel their viewpoint won't be fairly considered, they shut up.

Others tried to turn the Will Smith slap into a commentary about black women's hair and expanded to how we need to protect black women (which was the viewpoint Haddish was expressing). Yes, Chris Rock's G.I. Jane joke was a reference to Jada P. Smith's hair but again you are purposely confusing and complicating an issue. It doesn't matter what the joke was about. You don't go and hit someone over the joke! But the political activists, the "movers and shakers" want to use the opportunity to vent about their pet issue. And by doing so they can't place blame. And so the Tevye syndrome kicks in. People will say you shouldn't slap someone but on the other hand they understand why Smith did what he did. They will cap it all off by saying "both statements can be true". You know what else is true? A statement like that allows one to avoid coming down on an issue and prevent them from making what should be a very simple statement to make. DON'T HIT PEOPLE FOR TELLING A JOKE!

And this leads to what seems to be an uncomfortable truth about both political sides. They seem okay with violence when it suits their purpose. Remember Donald Trump's "very fine people on both sides" statement after the incident in Charlottesville? It excused violence because Trump didn't want to upset his supporters. It would have been very simple to condemn violence but what would have been gained politically from that? And so Democrats gave grandstanding statements condemning violence. And then BlackLivesMatter protests happened. Looting went on. Republicans all of a sudden found the courage to condemn violence. Democrats on the other hand...well, protests are supposed to be violent. Violent protests bring change. And really, big deal, so a couple of buildings were destroyed and some people stole merchandise from these stores. The left-wing political activists told us, we are valuing property above human lives! Everyone can always come up with a justification for behavior they approve of. There is always a talking point ready to be repeated by the party involved. But when January 6th happened Republicans could now say, well, that was a violent protest and didn't Democrats say violent protests bring change? Protests are supposed to be violent. Again, I must repeat myself, if you just say what you know to be true and right, you will always look good. You will always be viewed as an honest person. Were these politicians and activists being disingenuous? You bet! Were they bending truths? You bet! Are they hypocrites? You bet! But that seems to be the name of the game nowadays. Engage in faux outrage, take phony-baloney moral positions that you are willing to drop on a dime when the opportunity arises, confuse the issue and search for the gray.

And what do we get out of it? How does this help our politics or the Academy? What is gained? In the case of the Academy, not much. Oh sure, ratings went up a bit, compared to last year but that's only because last year's had the all-time lowest ratings. This year's show  is the second lowest rated, based on preliminarily numbers.

And what of the rest of the show? The Academy continued in its efforts to make politically correct, image conscious decisions. The best director winner was Jane Campion for "The Power of the Dog" (2021). Making Campion the third woman to ever win the award. It was also historic in the sense it marked the first time ever two females won the best director award back-to-back. Last year's winner was Chloe Zhao for "Nomadland" (2020). "CODA" (2021), which won best picture became the second remake (it is based on a French movie) to win the top prize (Scorsese's "The Departed" (2006) was the first). Jessica Chastain won best actress for a performance I raved about in "The Eyes of Tammy Faye" (2021), which I placed on my top ten list. Kenneth Branagh won his first Oscar ever for best original screenplay for "Belfast" (2021).

Although the Academy tried to shorten the show by having technical awards presented prior to the telecast, the show was still one of the longest. Some of the show's botches I felt included a 60th anniversary tribute to James Bond which was presented by Tony Hawk, Kelly Slater, and Shaun White! My question is why? Where were the actual living actors that have played Bond - Pierce Brosnan, Timothy Dalton, and Daniel Craig? What the heck, invite George Lazenby too! A 50th anniversary of "The Godfather" (1972) had Francis Ford Coppola, Al Pacino, and Robert De Niro on stage but no clips of the movie were shown? And while I love Robert De Niro, he was actually in the sequel not the original. Where was Diane Keaton, James Caan, and Talia Shire? Somehow they even managed to screw up the In Memorial by having a choir sing right in front of the screen honoring those that passed away. It was very distracting. Why not place the choir to the side of the screen? Unfortunately (or luckily) that was all I personally saw. And of course Will Smith won best actor and provided a lame excuse about how love made him do what he did.

I'm sure my take on the slap will anger some political activists if they ever read this and feel I am "simplifying" the issue but that's my point! Yes, I am familiar with the saying "there are two sides to every story" but are you familiar with "shut the fuck up"? Not everything has to have two sides. The politicians and political activists know this, when it is convenient for them of course. They will engage in moral grandstanding. They won't feel the need to split hairs. It is them I blame for all discourse. Not us, the everyday John and Jane Does of the world. Every person I know, who didn't have a political agenda, agreed with me. Will Smith was wrong. Case closed. We have to stop looking for the gray. Stop complicating the simple. Did you know there are 72 genders? I can still only name two.

Film Review: La Luna

 "La Luna"

*** (out of ****)

Bernardo Bertolucci, the famed Italian auteur, was not afraid of tackling controversial subject matters as seen in films "Before the Revolution" (1964) and "Last Tango in Paris" (1972) but his drama "La Luna" (1979) may have been the most controversial film of his career. 

Featuring Jill Clayburgh as a desperate mother driven to extreme means and drawing inspiration from Freud's Oedipus complex, Bertolucci's examination of fathers and sons, parental love, and boundaries, has often been maligned by audiences and sheep ("movie critics") not willing to look beyond the surface.

Immediately establishing its central themes in the opening sequence - a mother and baby playing together (with mildly suggestive behavior of her licking honey off of the baby's knee) as the mother's lover disrupts the moment (so they can dance) leaving a crying baby running to the waiting arms of his paternal grandmother - "La Luna" is the story of fathers and sons and the power struggle that ensues with each fighting for the mother's attention and affection and her inability to handle the situation. 

Caterina Silveri (Clayburgh) is an American Opera soprano and mother of teenage son Joe (Matthew Barry) whose husband (Fred Gwynne) suddenly dies, resulting in their heading to Italy, where Caterina has a role in an Opera. Unfortunately, it is in Italy Joe picks up a heroine addiction and now Caterina must help him break the habit.

I imagine that description alone doesn't make "La Luna" sound terribly scandalous or controversial however it is the means by which Caterina aids Joe that has led to public condemnation labeling the film "laughable", "depraved", and "disgusting". In a moment of sheer desperation Caterina begins an incestuous relationship with her son. This makes it easy to dismiss the film and simply refer to it as "Bertolucci's incest movie".

Bernardo Bertolucci is not interested in making pornography and "La Luna" is not schlock. Merely viewing the film as an "incest movie" misses the dramatic tension and psychological undercurrent at play. Walking into this film expecting to be titillated will leave one sorely disappointed. 

The baby from the opening scene grows up to be Joe, who is forever caught in the middle between his mother and the men in her life. Pay attention to an early sequence involving the power play dynamics between Joe, Caterina, and Douglas (Gwynne). Joe is upset Caterina and Douglas are going to Europe without him. He pleads his case to his mother on why she should take him along instead of Douglas (the man Joe believes to be his father). Joe tells his mother he can do everything Douglas does but he can do it better. Caterina of course enforces Joe can't come along because Douglas is needed. Seeing he has reached a dead end he then attempts to butter up Douglas and presents a scenario where Douglas doesn't go to Europe but instead stays behind with him. They could have a lot of fun and go to a ball game.

It is also interesting to study them while sitting at the dinning room table. Pay attention to Douglas' eyes and the way he stares at Joe. Looking at any actor's eyes during a performance tells you so much about the character. Douglas looks at Joe with distain. And Douglas isn't above playing his own games like when he walks in on Caterina packing and mentions he had a strange dream but then doesn't tell her because she is busy. Of course, why mention anything in an attempt to start a conversation when you can see someone is busy? Things like this are usually done for attention and when the individual senses they haven't gotten the attention they seek they backpedal.

Another interesting sequence takes place on Caterina's opening night Opera performance (the scenes we see position her between two men, a reoccurring theme) after the performance, while in her dressing room, Caterina begins to scold Joe, asking where was he? He was supposed to be in the audience. She tells him she needed him. She doesn't know how she got through the performance without him. What she doesn't know is Joe was in the audience. What is interesting however is the automatic assumption Joe wasn't there and the automatic assumption the current man in her life, Edward (Peter Eyre) was. He wasn't due to a flight delay. Adding to this undercurrent is the fact Caterina forgot Joe's birthday is the next day. Joe reminds her, people who love me don't forget my birthday. After apologizing for missing the performance Edward tells Caterina he adores her. Caterina reminds him, people that adore me don't miss my opening nights. There is a lot of power dynamics going on here.

Once establishing Caterina is always placed between two men (her lover & baby, Joe & Douglas, Joe & Edward, the two male performers...etc) it is telling the only other female we see Joe display a romantic interest in is Arianna (Elisabetta Campeti), a young girl around his age, who partakes in his heroine habit. When we first see these two together there is another young boy following Arianna. The relationship isn't made clear but we assume he loves  Arianna. Yet again another female placed between two males. The difference is this time Joe is the preference.

When the infamous incest happens Joe is having severe withdrawal. He is the one that guides his mother's hand toward his genitalia. The camera captures her facial expression which to me suggest a light bulb has went off and utter desperation. She then proceeds to massage Joe's genitals to climax. I noticed many of the sheep (critics) falsely describe this scene as if it was the mother who initiated this action. As if it was her intention all along. One more reason not to like critics!

But Bertolucci doesn't present the sequence as sexy or titillating. We are not meant to be aroused by this action but rather feel pity and empathy for Caterina. However watching "La Luna" again a thought occurred to me. I don't believe Caterina has any idea how to stop her son from taking drugs. She is in a situation where she is completely over her head. As a grown woman her only dealing with men have revolved around sex and the games couples play concerning it. Caterina is responding to the situation the only way she knows how - using sex as a weapon. As a means to gain power and take control of a situation. Pay attention to later scenes when Caterina tries to make Joe jealous commenting on the muscles of another man. These are games a woman plays with her lover. Caterina's inability to deal with the situation has caused a blurry line disrupting parental boundaries. 

Jill Clayburgh's performance in "La Luna" is the kind some refer to as "bold" and "daring". Despite some mixed reviews, Clayburgh would win a Golden Globe nomination in the best actress drama category. She lost that year to Sally Fields and her performance in "Norma Rae" (1979). Fields would go on to win the Academy Award as well that year. Clayburgh does give her all and seems committed to the role. Not many American actresses would have accepted this role and fewer would have played it as Clayburgh does.

"La Luna" was Bertolucci's eight feature film coming off of great successes such as "The Conformist" (1970, my choice for his best film) and "Spider's Stratagem" (1970) as well as disappointments like "1900" (1977). Sadly the remainder of Bertolucci's career would be rough sailing. He wouldn't direct a film of  "critical importance" until the Oscar winner "The Last Emperor" (1987) and not again until "The Dreamers" (2003). In between these films he directed "The Sheltering Sky" (1990), "Stealing Beauty" (1996), and "Besieged" (1998). Among these films "Stealing Beauty" would have the distinction of being nominated for the Palm d'or at the Cannes Film Festival.

Many people may read a review for "La Luna" and simply not care about the psychology at play. They may only see what is on the surface and object to the movie. There's nothing anyone can do about that. I have described the plot and the controversy behind it. Only you will know if it is for you. I see it as a challenging film but one with rewards. There is something of substance here if you are willing to meet the movie halfway.