Kyle Kellams: Dr. Monica Sandler is now a member of the University of Arkansas faculty. She's an assistant professor of film studies in the Department of Communication at the U of A. She is a film and media historian, and among the subjects of her publications: how Hollywood awards like the Oscars and Emmys have had a role in what we see. Her forthcoming book is "The Oscar Industry: Creative Labor, Cultural Production, and the Award System in Media Industry." She says she's been very interested in those Hollywood awards since she was a preteen.
Sandler: I have a very distinct memory of arguing with my grandmother about why "A Beautiful Mind" was going to win Best Picture. I was that age. She's like, "You haven't seen that movie. Why are you saying that?" And I'm like, "That's not the point. The point is that according to all these predictive things, this is the movie that's going to win Best Picture." And I remember her just sort of laughing at me. And I was right. Of course, I was 11 and right about all of it.
I kind of figured out that there was an infrastructure around the ceremony, that it wasn't necessarily about the things I thought were best were going to win, but I found the race behind all of it to be just immensely fascinating. So, I was really into it when I was younger. I also got to win Oscar pools, which I've been told I'm a very smug winner. People don't play with me anymore, but it's been a lifelong thing.
Kellams: You mentioned the race, and, of course, there's promotion and there's money put behind it by studios. If you get the trade magazines, the "For Your Consideration." But is there also politics? And I mean politics in a couple of different ways: studio politics or the ascension of a career, but also, do cultural politics play a role?
Sandler: Well, I think absolutely. I think if you have something that's particularly timely for the moment, you can see some of that reflected in what you're seeing. You also can see the kind of conservatism of the Academy reflected back in films where you can have films that are really, really exciting, things like "BlacKkKlansman," "Black Panther" — this was the 2019 ceremony — and you have something like "Green Book," which was infinitely less thought-provoking, we'll go with that as a nice way of saying it, winning Best Picture.
So that was a particular year where it seemed like you had a lot of momentum about showcasing diverse voices and films made by those diverse voices, and instead you get a movie like "Green Book."
Kellams: Which was a predictable outcome.
Sandler: Yeah, which was much more predictable. So that was a year that particularly felt like there was a push toward social justice, yet "Green Book" seems like a very nice movie, and it's making a very mild statement. So it always is like they're never going to be that level of extreme. But there has been a bit of a push recently, at least in terms of the range of what gets nominated. And that was one particular year. It's not necessarily reflected in more recent winners, but the big change has been becoming a more global organization.
Kellams: Yeah. "Parasite" winning Best Picture.
Sandler: Yeah. That was a really huge deal. And as a film historian, that was the year where I was wrong, where I was like, "I don't know. 'Parasite's' not going to win Best Picture. The elderly voters don't read subtitles." And I was really happy to be made wrong.
But essentially, there's this long history of there is no international representation at the Academy Awards, and notoriously, the Best — now International Film, but previously Foreign Language Film — category. So, there's essentially a contest of nations basically relegated all of anything that has subtitles into one particular category.
Kellams: Kind of a consolation prize.
Sandler: Yeah. Essentially, like, "This is an American award. You're not playing with us," even if some of the best films made annually are not in English. It was the dynamic that was always at play at the ceremony until very recently.
And the best way to really talk about it is in relation to the #OscarsSoWhite movement, which is to say that the Academy announced that they were going to increase diversity in their membership. It should be said that at the time when #OscarsSoWhite happened, which was two years where no people of color were nominated in any of the acting categories, they were 90% white. They were also like 80% male, and the average age was in their 60s amongst the votership. So, there's definitely a huge issue. But there also is a diversity problem in Hollywood.
They did not drastically transform representation in the industry. Alternatively, what they did was they decided to expand globally and become a more international organization. And that's how, with the increase in membership, you have a film like "Parasite" win Best Picture, which is a major milestone, but a different conversation than the one they were initially being called out on.
Kellams: You've written about #OscarsSoWhite, that hashtag movement. Did it make a difference? What kind of difference did it make? In the paper you've written about that, you mentioned Louise Beavers, who was in "Imitation of Life," the 1934 edition, who was the first actor of color who there had been some buzz —
Sandler: Yeah.
Kellams: Now, this is early, in the first five or six years of the Oscars.
Sandler: Yeah.
Kellams: She did not get nominated. Hattie McDaniel, a few years later, wins for "Gone with the Wind," and then it's Sidney Poitier, the next person.
Sandler: Sidney Poitier is the next person to win. James Baskett receives an honorary Oscar for his performance in "Song of the South" in the late 1940s. So there is that in there, and you do have occasional nominees in the mix. But essentially, the Hattie McDaniel victory, I think, really was groundbreaking in some communities and not in others, I think is the way to describe it. That's one of the things I write about.
Kellams: Is it fair, with retrospect, to say Hattie McDaniel could win because Hattie McDaniel was playing a role that many white voters were comfortable seeing a person of color playing?
Sandler: Yeah, I think there's a lot of that element. One of the things that I write about is the discourse in historically Black newspapers, who, when the victory comes, there's a lot of debate over whether or not this is a good thing, because the question is: She's playing a stereotype. She's playing a mammy character. And what is this going to — propel more opportunity? Or is this going to cement that these are the types of roles that are appropriate?
And that debate, I think, given that there was a very prolonged period of time between when she won and when there was another opportunity, and, of course, James Baskett's performance being another stereotype showcased that in the Oscars. But I think it is worth noting that there is real progress in terms of representation during World War II in particular, and that should be acknowledged in some of the conversation. So, there is progress, but then there's also a pushback that is particularly tied to the postwar period.
Kellams: Juanita Moore, who played the same character in the '50s version of "Imitation of Life" that Louise Beavers had played, she did get nominated, right?
Sandler: Yes.
Kellams: But didn't win.
Sandler: No.
Kellams: We're talking about the Oscars, but the next big award ceremony that Americans are going to be paying attention to, the Emmys for television, haven't been around as long. Have the Emmys traditionally been a little bit better or just as homogeneous as the Oscars during their history?
Sandler: I think they've certainly been — television has a similar type of history in terms of depictions of representation and opportunity. It's hard to really say. They're intertwined with one another, because that is to say that you have groundbreaking civil rights shows in the late 1960s. This is also the same years that Sidney Poitier is the top-grossing blockbuster film star during that period of time, so it is hard to decipher through that. They're an intertwined industry. So I think one thing that is reflected in film gets reflected in television simultaneously.
Kellams: So, the Emmys are coming up. It seems as though television, in this age of prestige TV, of streaming, has, I guess, gained a little bit on Hollywood — well, it's still Hollywood — but gained on film. The best television now, you could argue, is as good as or maybe better than the best films in any year.
Sandler: Yeah, I think there was a wave, a movement of prestige TV that particularly started with "The Sopranos" in the early 2000s, where you have higher-budget, high-conceptual TV shows. And that's still very present. I think beyond that, film and television have become even more intertwined.
So, it's also just the structure of the Emmys is based off of the old broadcasting model. Why are they happening right now? There are a lot more award ceremonies, many of which celebrate film and television, like the Actors Awards, the Golden Globes, so forth, that are in January. Why are they happening right now? Originally, it was because the broadcast seasons start basically immediately after the Emmys. So, you have TV shows that are exclusively on the three broadcasters, and then some of them will win, and then they will immediately start their new season. You have the biggest possible promotion that you can have.
So why is this happening right now in the first place? It is based off of a much, much older model that still exists, that we still keep to. So, I think that those are the ways that things have broken down. And most TV shows are developed and shoot the same way that a film does. They're just a longer period of time for a shoot because you're filming more hours of content.
Kellams: Can we look at award shows and, let's say, we go back in time — it may be harder in contemporary times — but can we look at past Emmys or past Oscars and get an idea of what the zeitgeist was in society, or are they not representative?
Sandler: In terms of the winners or in terms of what happens?
Kellams: Maybe even just the nominees, the nominees or the things that happen.
Sandler: I think certainly with television, the shows that are the most popular, I think there is a lot of reflection on what's going on in society. And the shows that win, I think, can also have a greater level of being groundbreaking. I think of something like "Modern Family," which — there's a tendency for a TV show to just dominate and win over and over and over again — which won over and over and over again. "Will & Grace" doing exceedingly well, and that breaking down barriers for representation, of course, on television, in society and things like that. The Oscars, a little bit slower on that front. I immediately think of something like "Brokeback Mountain" losing during that same period of time at the Oscars.
Kellams: Right. So, with the Emmys coming up, do you still have rooting interests when you watch? Do you think, "Oh, I want this show to do well"?
Sandler: Oh, yeah. And maybe in some ways I'm more emotionally attached to certain TV shows. I can disassociate myself with the Oscars because it's only going on for a period of time, but you have the existing relationship with shows. I, this year, am particularly torn in the Best Actress category between Lisa Kudrow for "The Comeback" and Jean Smart for "Hacks." I don't know how to choose that one.
Kellams: Here's my advice. Emotional. Jean Smart's won several, well-deserved.
Sandler: Yes.
Kellams: I don't think Lisa Kudrow has ever won.
Sandler: No. She's never — she's never won for Valerie Cherish. She won for "Friends."
Kellams: Oh, well, then I —
Sandler: But Valerie Cherish is an icon.
Kellams: Yes. But Jean Smart wins, no one's going to be unhappy about that because she's so amazing.
Sandler: The last season, she's particularly extraordinary and sets new standards even for herself in a part that's always been incredible. So, it's very hard to evaluate.
Kellams: When you're in your classroom, when you're talking about film studies, what do you try to get across to students? Because we all love film and television for entertainment, but there's so much more to it, right?
Sandler: Yeah. One of the things I particularly stress in my class is a combination of understanding historical context with what you're looking at and then looking at the relationship between — I'm teaching film history a lot of the time — past and present. So that way, you have a full understanding of the scope of the media that you're consuming today is coming from somewhere, and a lot of it is referencing something, and it's a part of a history. It's a part of a historical moment that moves well beyond just the entertainment that you're watching when you're looking at media content.
Kellams: Art as politics?
Sandler: That can be true. Or also, just things that are entertaining can be, if it's unintentional, of course, can still cause a reaction many years later.
Kellams: I have been told by some of our interns and work-study students who've been here that when they take film history, or a film course, that most of their contemporaries, most of their peers, immediately reject a black-and-white film. It's just too old. Do you find that to be the case?
Sandler: You have to ease in, is what I will say. I certainly struggle with showing silent cinema and keeping the engagement up. So it's about slapstick plays really well, things like that, things that are comedic and engaging. And so it definitely is a process, but also showcasing — I love showing film noir because, not just because they're engaging stories, but they're so visually striking and playing with shadow, and it showcases: This is what black and white can do visually when you're watching something like "Double Indemnity." This is this whole medium. You can do really, really cool things with it just being black and white.
And so color is great, too. I showed "Singin' in the Rain" in my class very recently, which is just a Technicolor marvel. And a number of my students also commented on, "Why aren't films so colorful today? The color is so cool in this movie." So there is differing relationships, even between black and white, between 1950s color, and seeing excitement that can build around looking at how it can still be really artistic and neat.
Kellams: Monica Sandler is an assistant professor of film studies in the Department of Communication at the University of Arkansas. Her forthcoming book is "The Oscar Industry: Creative Labor, Cultural Production, and the Award System in Media Industry." Her website is monicasandlerphd.com. You can follow her on Instagram at @monica_roxanne1 and all other platforms @monica_roxanne. Our conversation took place at the Carver Center for Public Radio Wednesday morning.
Ozarks at Large transcripts are created on a rush deadline and edited for length and clarity. Copy editors utilize AI tools to review work. KUAF does not publish content created by AI. Please reach out to kuafinfo@uark.edu to report an issue. The audio version is the authoritative record of KUAF programming.
