Yesterday I praised Viola Davis’ Oscars speech for being memorable without being overtly political – for just talking about her work in a moving and well-written way. Twitter quickly pointed out that I missed something. On social media and conservative news sites, Davis’ speech had in fact sparked outrage.
After explaining that she felt her mission was to “exhume … the stories of people who dreamed big and never saw those dreams come true, people who fell in love and lost,” Davis said this:
I became an artist – and I thank God that I did – because we are the only profession that celebrates what it means to live a life.
This claim became one of the talking points of the right-wing internet after the Oscars ceremony. “Art is wonderful; art enriches; art can connect us with others,” writes Ben Shapiro to Daily Wire. “But the sheer arrogance of claiming that artists are ‘the only profession that celebrates what it means to live a life’ is astounding. What about doctors? What about stay-at-home moms, who help shape life instead than pursue their career interests? How about almost everyone in a free market economy, who gives to others to improve their lives?
Variations of that sentiment have bounced around online, with Davis sometimes mistakenly saying that only “actors” celebrate what it means to live a life, or, worse, they’re the only ones who “know” what it means to live a life . .
Do people have a right to be offended? Did he say that artists are better than anyone else? Reading his words literally, in the context of his speech, and extending the slightest benefit of the doubt, it’s hard to see the backlash against Davis as anything other than a symptom of our overblown culture wars.
Someone might “celebrate what it means to live a life” in their personal ways, but for whom is this a primary function of their profession? Artists, of course. The clergy, perhaps. Doctors save live rather than celebrate them, and do not denigrate them by saying so. Parents stay at home help others, and Davis might even agree that this is more noble, important and essential than “celebrating” the meaning of life.
Her point was simply that artists serve a unique role in telling stories about the human experience, and that she is happy to be a part of it.
Certainly, it could be edited to make it less controversial, although it may be less interesting, declaration If she had only said, “I became an artist—and I thank God that I did—because we celebrate what it means to live a life,” the complaints might have been harder to come by. The “unique” emphasizes a specific way that artists are special, but it is also a symbol to all those who hold a strong resentment about the elitism and condescension of Hollywood. And there has rarely been a better time to express such resentment than now.
On the right, the reflected distaste for the entertainment industry has taken on new fervor under Donald Trump. During the Fox and friends after the Oscarsthe snafu where La La Land erroneously announced as the Best Film was spun by Steve Doocy as “Hollywood got the election wrong, and last night Hollywood got the Oscars wrong”. Guest Tucker Carlson agreed, but added that moonlight “I had to win” because the moralizing, politically correct establishment wanted it. Yes, the Oscars were both an out-of-touch catastrophe and an insidious trick game.
Donald Trump gave his own interpretation of the Academy: “I think they were so focused on politics that they didn’t get the act together in the end,” he said. Breitbartas if the accountant PricewaterhouseCoopers who he gave Warren Beatty the wrong envelope he did it because he yelled too hard at Kimmel who tweeted the president “u up?”
Liberals may complain that Trump is taking credit for his critics making a logistical error. But, of course, both sides see a lot of politics in entertainment these days: See all the takes making like Doocy and comparing the end of the Oscars to election night.
To many viewers on Sunday, Davis’ speech seemed remarkable for how he almost transcended the partisan fray and spoke passionately about action. But one word – “just” – was enough to make it a test of culture war. Maybe she wanted to pick a fight about the place of art in society, or maybe she was just portraying her profession as she really sees it. Either way, it was a defiant move in an era where artists are increasingly held to the same standards as candidates for office: he was expected to choose his words not for truth, but for politics.