The PGA Award Named After My Rapist Great-Grandfather
Producers Guild of America should distance annual award from sexual abuse
The Producers Guild of America (PGA) recently released nominations for their 34th annual awards. Many have noted the lack of women directors nominated this year, by the PGA, the Directors Guild, and the Academy Awards.
Despite progress, women in the film industry continue to battle gender-based hurdles. From support for authentic stories, to recognition of quality productions, women continue to be left behind.
A related concern is if there’s any honor in recognizing a filmmaker’s achievements with an award named after a historical sexual abuser.
PGA Producer’s Award has a cruel history.
I've followed PGA awards for a long time. Movies are a big part of my life. Through the random birth lottery, I have a personal connection to PGA history, and the abuse behind their producer’s award. My grandfather, Richard Zanuck, was the first recipient of the PGA award for Best Picture. His father, Darryl F. Zanuck, is the filmmaker the producer’s award is named after.
A co-founder of 20th Century-Fox, Darryl Zanuck was one of the longest reigning studio executives in Hollywood. He was a well-known misogynist, sexual abuser and rapist. Both within the industry and in his personal life. As his great-granddaughter, it’s hard to say who he damaged more—young, aspiring actresses forced onto his casting couch, or his own family.
The PGA has recognized producers with the Darryl F. Zanuck Award for Outstanding Producer of Theatrical Motion Pictures since 1990, a decade after he had died. Given my great-grandfather's reputation and history, I question how much longer an award tied to his abuse should be tolerated.
Film industry response to sexual abuse.
In 2018, after numerous sexual abuse allegations became public with the Me Too movement, the PGA and other professional organizations in the entertainment industry implemented new policies to address abuse. These actions were taken not out of a desire to do so, but as a response to significant pressure from the media. After all, why had it taken decades for not-so-secret abuse to be formally addressed?
The answer is simple. Big business can easily ignore individuals, but it cannot ignore a public outcry that could hurt profits. In light of these professional changes, how serious can the Producers Guild be about combatting abuse when they hand out an annual award named after a rapist?
For a moment, envision that you are presenting, or winning, the PGA award for outstanding production. The name of a known rapist prominently displayed in large letters on the screen behind you. Would you consider that a simple oversight, or a deliberate and persistent choice? Should a woman in the industry feel thoroughly honored in that environment?
Imagine if the award was named after Harvey Weinstein.
Some may argue that Zanuck's abuse and Weinstein's abuse are not the same. Not only is the abuse the same, Darryl was, in fact, far worse. Being an early influential figure in the film industry, Darryl Zanuck enabled sexual abuse as a standard and norm. His leadership allows men, like Weinstein, to perpetuate a long legacy of sexual abuse. A legacy that still exists today, over a hundred years after it was established as an industry standard. That is a hideous legacy.
Tying admiration to Zanuck’s abuse is wrong.
The harm caused by sexual abuse does not disappear with the passage of time. Survivors of abuse carry the trauma with them for their entire lives. Abuse is a violation that lingers forever, within a realm of timelessness, much like a movie. Persistent abuse has far-reaching and destructive effects on both individuals, communities, and industries.
A professional culture of abuse is heinous and repugnant. It is the antithesis of humanity and the art of connection. In the business world, reprehensible behavior is unfortunately common. What is important, is how we respond to these actions once we are aware of them. The film industry still has a large problem of abuse, which is unacceptable. It is particularly troubling when known abusers continue to have their names lifted in celebration.
Is it possible to appreciate art separate from the artist? I have contended with this question my entire adult life. It seems necessary to do so, as many talented creatives have been absolute monsters. As art lovers, we must accept this as a reality, and not shy away from discussing it out in the open. Ignoring or excusing abuse, and continuing to honor those who engage in it, is a different topic altogether. There is a moral line that must be drawn, by audiences and within the film industry, to protect both artists and the value of creative work.
The fundamental question is this: How long will we allow powerful men to abuse people for the sake of two hours of entertainment? While I love many films, none of them are worth the harm caused by abuse. No work of art is worth the price of sexual abuse.
As a writer outside of the film industry, my career is not at risk by speaking out against abuse. My personal background advocating against injustices gives me a unique perspective. My ancestry gives me the privilege to speak freely about the Zanuck legacy of abuse. I want to use that privilege to help others understand the larger context of systemic abuse.
How the PGA can support women filmmakers.
While the Producers Guild awards aren’t as popular as the Oscars, they have an important role in the movie industry. A unique aspect of PGA nominations is they often predict the winners of Academy Awards. Particularly for the Best Picture category. Within the industry, the PGA matters a great deal.
It is a fact that there aren’t enough women in the film industry recognized for their outstanding creative work. However, they should not be recognized with an award tied to one of the oldest sexual abusers in Hollywood. The only appropriate action for the Producers Guild of America is to remove Darryl Zanuck's name from the producer's award.
Removing a historical name from an achievement does not diminish the value of the award, in this case, it would only strengthen that value. Severing Darryl's name serves as a symbolic rejection of film industry abuse. It will affirm the PGA's commitment to fostering a safe and healthy work environment, for everyone.
Alternatively, the PGA can do nothing, proving once again that abusive men, alive or dead, can get away with abuse masked as prestige.