What to Do About the Academy Museum’s Pandering Problem

by

What to Do About the Academy Museum’s Pandering Problem

As a long-time gamer and film enthusiast, I’ve been closely following the development and opening of the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures with great anticipation. Having grown up in Los Angeles, I’ve always been fascinated by the history of Hollywood and its impact on global culture. The museum was touted as a world-class institution that would contextualize and challenge dominant narratives around cinema, but my experience so far has been underwhelming and disappointing.

The Academy Museum of Motion Pictures has been a commercial hit and a critical misfire.

In a time when Oscar telecast viewership has been dwindling, this new establishment has become a significant draw in Los Angeles due to its impressive ticket sales – over two million visitors since its September 2021 opening. This has not only boosted the Academy’s finances but also led to Bill Kramer, the museum’s first director, being promoted to CEO of AMPAS, the organization’s parent body. However, with the exception of “Regeneration,” which explores Black-American filmmaking during the early 1970s and has received critical acclaim, the exhibitions have fallen flat in terms of meaningful dialogue, appearing more suited for local tourists than the globally renowned institution the Academy aspires to be.

As a dedicated gamer and avid fan of Japanese animation, I’ve been thrilled to witness an outpouring of heartfelt homages to the legendary Hayao Miyazaki. But it’s not just the big names that have received their due recognition. Lesser-known figures like editor Thelma Schoonmaker and director Oscar Micheaux have also been given their moment in the spotlight.

During the spring season, the museum’s effort to rectify the past, showcasing Jewish immigrant moguls who founded Hollywood in an exhibition named Hollywoodland, encountered strong opposition from displeased entertainment industry veterans such as Casey Wasserman, Lawrence Bender, David Schwimmer, and Amy Sherman-Palladino. In a letter, they criticized the display as “antisemitic” due to its emphasis on the subjects’ unsavory biographical details, which included misogyny and greed. Alma Har’el, who had been part of the museum’s diversity committee and directed the exhibit, stepped down after viewing it.

Others responded to the criticism with opposing views. Michael Schulman, a writer for The New Yorker known for his coverage of the Oscars and film industry, stated that the legacies of certain individuals are complex and ignoring this complexity is similar to the approach taken by Ron DeSantis in history. However, the museum later apologized for language potentially reinforcing stereotypes and appointed external advisors, including former and current heads of Jewish-themed museums, to suggest changes. After revisiting the exhibition, Schulman expressed feelings of sadness and anger upon seeing the altered presentation. Neal Gabler, author of a renowned book about Jewish founders in Hollywood, initially contributed to the development of the “Hollywoodland” exhibit.

This latest controversy highlights the over-arching issue at the Academy Museum. Its mission isn’t just to celebrate filmmaking but to “contextualize and challenge dominant narratives around cinema.” In other words: To question what’s still only a century-old medium with the same seriousness that’s long been curatorially afforded to far more established arts and sciences. Yet right now it lacks the capacity to fulfill that mandate.

As a gamer who’s been following non-profit governance for The Hollywood Reporter, I’ve had my eyes on the Academy Museum since before the groundbreaking. I remember speaking with exhibition experts over a decade ago, who pointed out the challenging balance between the museum’s lofty goals and its management of conflicting stakeholders. They expressed concerns that the institution’s close ties to Hollywood could potentially undermine its credibility. USC Cinematic Arts Librarian Sandra Garcia-Myers described it as a complex web, questioning if the museum would ask the tough questions and engage in meaningful discussions. Only time would tell – within a year, we could determine if this was a genuine curatorial mission or more of a Disney ride experience.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is skilled at preserving and safeguarding robust institutions. Evidence of this can be seen in the Pickford Center for Motion Picture Study, an extensive film print archive, and the Margaret Herrick Library, a globally recognized resource for Hollywood research materials.

The fledgling museum on LACMA’s prestigious campus unfortunately caters to popular tastes instead of challenging visitors intellectually. It’s disappointing when they present crowd-pleasers like the upcoming “Cyberpunk” sci-fi exhibition. However, this is tolerable for such offerings. The problem arises when the museum aims for more, acting as a vital and unwavering voice of intellect during the film industry’s struggles with its crises, including theaters closing and AI intrusion.

The museum is functional now but lacks the reassuring presence of experienced curators. Despite having a esteemed 28-person board of trustees, including notable figures in entertainment (Miky Lee, Tom Hanks, Jim Gianopulos) and business professionals, there is a noticeable absence of individuals who have previously overseen large, ambitious museums, aside from Kramer and the newly appointed director, Amy Homma. Neither individual was accessible for comment to The Hollywood Reporter, and they both lack curatorial backgrounds.

In the museum world, it’s crucial to have influential figures who can uphold independence in the boardroom. With an exhibition center focused on the film industry, there will inevitably be both private pressures and public scrutiny regarding how it represents the companies that finance it. To strengthen this stance, increasing the number of trustees or adding more diverse voices to the current group would be beneficial.

The Academy Museum benefits significantly from the protection and resources provided by AMPAS and its members. However, it cannot fully achieve its goals until it establishes more autonomy and separates itself more distinctly from the organization that created it.

Read More

2024-07-23 19:55