Time 100 is the annual issue of the famous magazine Time dedicated to the most influential people in the world. Although born with the aim of signaling those who have changed the world, both for better and for worse, over the years appearing on the list has only become an honor.
In the editorial of the latest edition it was explained that the recurring theme of the year, with as many as 16 people directly linked to the theme, is climate change. The qualities required to be selected by the editorial staff are of various types. It can be the objective possession of power (world leaders), the influence one has over events (activists) or the strength of the moral example one is able to set.
The list is divided into six categories: artists, icons, pioneers, leaders, titans and innovators. An anomaly already appears here: the great personalities of the cinema and audiovisual world have broken the boundaries of the first category, and are scattered across all six sections.
Cinema in almost every category of the Time 100
To earn the first mention among the artists is Michael B. Jordan (told by Ryan Coogler). That of the titans is covered with Angela Bassett (with an essay by Tina Turner). That of the Innovators is of Bob Iger (of which he writes Mary Barra). Jennifer Coolidge finally, it is the first of the icons (told by Mia Farrow).
What if Baz Luhrmann write words of praise for Doja Cat who took the first image in the pioneer category (the singer collaborated with the director for the song Vegas in Elvis), also has a place under that heading SS Rajamouli. The director of RRR, an Indian film that became a cult phenomenon at the end of the year.
The world of cinema has only been excluded from the category of leaders, but the impression is that it won’t be like this forever. The omnipresence of audiovisual personalities in 5 of 6 sections tells a lot about how cinema is perceived. A place of artists, of personalities who influence customs, who have the ability to remain at the heart of the industry, earning their place and sometimes becoming brands themselves. Cinema as an art counts much less.
In fact, cinema can be a forge of icons such as Pedro Pascal And Ke Huy Quan appearing in this category instead of that of artists. Theirs looks like a promotion, but it’s not according to the logic of the ranking. But then why am I there?
In this case because they have outgrown their movies and TV series. They have influenced fashion, customs and styles, they have become transversal. They are personalities capable of overcoming their role as artists and becoming something more…
It’s definitely a promotion!
In the titans besides Bassett also figure Gina Prince-Bythewooddirector of The Woman King. The film became a phenomenon in the US thanks largely to its portrayal of women leaders in West Africa. Presences that suggest a precise idea of what the audiovisual should be according to the logic of Time 100: a tool to strengthen cultural change, to carry out a mission.
Bob Iger returns to the list, after the failed retirement, as a symbol of an entertainment that knows how to do business. Near him there are also Natasha Lyonneactress and screenwriter whose presence is motivated by a cryptic written by Taika Waititiand the comedian Nathan Fielder.
For Time 100, cinema is only incidentally cinema
Let’s start from Iger. His return to Disney was needed to implement a brutal restructuring of the company, with staff cuts and a new division into three segments. The vision of him, after the brief management Chapek, looks like a change of course. Clear ideas to implement whatever the cost. Inevitable mention of Time, always attentive to business skills.
Among the artists too Drew Barrymore is told by Jimmy Fallon as a great entrepreneur who launched her own line of beauty products and household items. Zoe Saldana and for Mila Kunis “the definitive cure in the entertainment industry, thanks to his powerful presence on the screen and the ability to play every role with ease”. In practice: its ability to be present in the biggest franchises of the last few decades.
Self Colin Farrell And Leah Michael are mentioned for their talent. Salma Hayek appears in the list with an underscore by Penelope Cruz: She was a pioneer, the first to open the doors of Hollywood to Latina women.
And instead Rian Johnson? Present to know how to give the public what they want and don’t know they want yet. Aubrey Plaza? For his talent and for his out-of-the-box character, that he doesn’t seek anyone’s approval.
In short, men are only allowed to be talented (read, make good films). For women, in addition to this, there is the moral caliber, the sense of initiative, and the singular personality they express.
This is exactly the consequence of the power of cinema to penetrate the collective imagination, certainly not the cause!
In other words: personalities do not make great audiovisual stories. It is the most impactful artistic intuitions that allow the public to get to know and appreciate the authors. As often happens in these lists (the same goes for the various recent rankings of the best films in the world) the medium merges with the message, bringing them together in the middle. It’s a way of thinking that has its own logic, but which is also demeaning for pure art, detached from agendas.
There is no doubt that Hollywood has clothed itself in a civil commitment that it is pouring into its films. The belief is that we can have a concrete impact on society, on the changes taking place, through narrative choices. Raise awareness, represent, suggest.
All this is found in the selections of the Time 100 issue with a great representation of the world of entertainment in each category. The one thing that has lagged behind, never being mentioned, is the show itself. Influential people, thanks to movies and TV series, who have influenced the public, or big stories with stars at their service?
Source: Times