Browse Items (90 total)

Brando and Wounded Knee

Brando and Wounded Knee

This item is a newspaper article by William F. Buckley published in the Minneapolis Tribune which provides an overview of Brando’s refusal of the Oscar, his activism at Wounded Knee, and Hollywood’s representation of Indigenous Americans. The tone is unserious and mocking, and the author appears disdainful of Brando in particular, writing that he has decided to become "Mr. Jane Fonda" and concluding that "the poor Indians" should be "spared the patronage of Marlon Brando."
THE ACADEMY MUSEUM WELCOMES SACHEEN LITTLEFEATHER FOR AN EVENING OF CONVERSATION, HEALING, AND CELEBRATION ON SEPTEMBER 17

THE ACADEMY MUSEUM WELCOMES SACHEEN LITTLEFEATHER FOR AN EVENING OF CONVERSATION, HEALING, AND CELEBRATION ON SEPTEMBER 17

A press release and letter published by the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures announcing an evening with Sacheen Littlefeather to reconcile and heal from her past mistreatment at the Academy Awards. The letter officially apologizes for her experience at the 1973 Academy Awards ceremony, and acknowledges her important role in film history. The content of the letter is included below:

June 18, 2022

Dear Sacheen Littlefeather,

I write to you today a letter that has been a long time coming on behalf of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, with humble acknowledgment of your experience at the 45th Academy Awards.

As you stood on the Oscars stage in 1973 to not accept the Oscar on behalf of Marlon Brando, in recognition of the misrepresentation and mistreatment of Native American people by the film industry, you made a powerful statement that continues to remind us of the necessity of respect and the importance of human dignity.

The abuse you endured because of this statement was unwarranted and unjustified. The emotional burden you have lived through and the cost to your own career in our industry are irreparable. For too long the courage you showed has been unacknowledged. For this, we offer both our deepest apologies and our sincere admiration.

We cannot realize the Academy's mission to "inspire imagination and connect the world through cinema" without a commitment to facilitating the broadest representation and inclusion reflective of our diverse global population.

Today, nearly 50 years later, and with the guidance of the Academy’s Indigenous Alliance, we are firm in our commitment to ensuring indigenous voices—the original storytellers—are visible, respected contributors to the global film community. We are dedicated to fostering a more inclusive, respectful industry that leverages a balance of art and activism to be a driving force for progress.

We hope you receive this letter in the spirit of reconciliation and as recognition of your essential role in our journey as an organization. You are forever respectfully engrained in our history.

With warmest regards,

David Rubin
President, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
The Godfather Wins Best Picture: 45th Oscars (1973)

The Godfather Wins Best Picture: 45th Oscars (1973)

Clint Eastwood presents the Academy Award for Best Picture to The Godfather. In his introduction, Eastwood makes reference to Littlefeather's speech. The transcript of the video is included below:

CE: I don't know if I should present this award on behalf of all the cowboys shot in all the John Ford westerns over the years.

I've seen all five nominated pictures as I'm sure all of you have, and they're all so excellent and so different, I'd have a hard time choosing one without feeling I'd been unfair to the others. And so it occurred to me that as different as they seem - 'go ahead and flip the card man, I'm still here' - they all have something in common. They're all concerned with the human dilemma and our confrontation with fate. Human beings engulfed in a lunatic dictatorship. Men brutalized by their fellow men on a hostile river. Families ripping up their old roots and hoping to plant new ones. And quite different families too who seek to prove that morality can exist within immorality. And finally, a mother, a father, three children , and a dog, who ask only to live in the dignity of which all life is entitled. These are diverse and distinguished pictures, and they are:

Cabaret, an ABC Pictures Production, Allied Artists, Cy Feuer, Producer.

Deliverance, Warner Brothers, produced by John Boorman.

The Emigrants, A.B. Svensk Filmindustri Production, Warner Brothers, Bengt Forslund, producer.

The Godfather, an Albert S. Ruddy production, Paramount, Albert S. Ruddy, producer.

Sounder, a Radnitz/Mattel productions, Twentieth Century Fox, Robert B. Radnitz, producer.

And the winner- and the winner is:

Albert S. Ruddy, Godfather.

AR: Don't fail me now! We were all getting nervous there for a moment. Let me do this quickly in two parts, because I know it's past midnight in New York and some of my relatives want to go to sleep.

There are a number of people I would like to thank, as everyone else would, because they deserve it. Bob Evans, for giving more than any studio head should in time and creativity. Frank Yablans, for having the courage and imagination to sell this film and make my mother rich. Charlie Bluhdorn, for having the courage to finance films, which I guess borders on insanity. And Peter Bart, who was a friend all the way through.

Now last off, there's millions of people who sit out there and people who love film and want to make film that will look at this [holding up the Oscar] and wonder what it's all about. America needs the motion picture business and the motion picture business needs the United States. Good audiences need good films as good films need good audiences. The American dream and what we all want, for me at least, is represented by this [holding up the Oscar]. It's there for everybody if we want to work, dream and try to get it. Thank you very much.
Red Cross volunteer nurse's aide--Enroll today as a Red Cross volunteer nurse's aide--Your help can ...

Red Cross volunteer nurse's aide--Enroll today as a Red Cross volunteer nurse's aide--Your help can ...

This 1943 Red Cross recruitment poster features an idealized young nurse's aide. A fresh-faced, perfectly groomed young nurse's aid stares out, and she seems calm and determined. Large block letters urge women to "ENROLL TODAY... YOUR HELP CAN SAVE MANY LIVES." By framing volunteer caregiving as vital to national defense, the poster turns these civilian aides into quiet home-front heroes and presents care work as the natural and almost inevitable extension of feminine patriotism and sacrifice.

Interpretation Note
This poster is a perfect example of how wartime visual culture redefined care work. Factory recruitment posters at least talked about production quotas and (sometimes) paychecks. Red Cross posters were different in that they turned nursing and caregiving into pure patriotic duty, and as something women should feel honored to do for free. Tony Bennett's work on cultural institutions as disciplinary spaces fits here exactly. This is not just an advertisement telling women to sign up, but rather it's training them to see unpaid care as the highest expression of feminine citizenship. The serene portrait does half the work, as it projects effortless grace and hides the grueling shifts, the training, and the emotional weight that real aides carried. By praising volunteer sacrifice and never mentioning skill or compensation, the poster repeats a very old script, which is that women's caring labor is noble but somehow not quite "labor." In the context of the exhibit, this piece shows how recruitment posters could lift care labor into the realm of national heroism at the same moment it kept that labor unpaid and "natural." That double move is what Bennett helps us see in the power of institutional images.

Domestic Service

Domestic Service

Lucy Maynard Salmon's Domestic Service is a 1901 investigation of women's household labor as part of the broader American economy. The book draws on more than a thousand surveys collected in the late 1880s from employers and workers, and documents wages, skills, national origins, living arrangements, and working conditions. The author outlines three major historical phases of domestic labor. The colonial period is when most household work was performed by enslaved people, indentured servants, or the very poor. After the Revolution, when free labor became more common and households briefly imagined themselves as more egalitarian.  By the mid-19th century, new immigrants, especially Irish, German, and Swedish women, entered domestic service in large numbers, making the work more widespread but lowering its social status. Salmon's data shows that most workers lived in cities, worked long hours with limited freedom, and earned an average of about $3.23 per week, often supplemented with room and board rather than full wages. Employers often treated household labor as personal labor rather than paid work, and employers had little power to negotiate conditions. Salmon proposed reforms, including abandoning the term "servant," ending tipping, dividing household tasks into defined roles, and establishing training schools to recognize household management as a skilled profession.

Interpretation Note
Salmon's study plays an important role in understanding how written records define women's labor. By converting lived experiences into surveys, tables, averages, and typologies, Salmon exposes domestic labor as economic labor governed by the same principles as factory or farm employment, which opposes the widespread belief that household work was merely women's natural duty. Yet, her methodology also demonstrates the trade-offs of institutional documentation. The precision of her statistics gives domestic labor new legitimacy, but the process of abstraction can smooth over the emotional, interpersonal, and racial dynamics that shaped daily life inside employers' homes. In this sense, Salmon's work echoes Saidiya Hartman's point about how the archive can make people visible while still muting their voices, since the workers appear as data rather than as narrating subjects. Her historical timeline shows how race and class determined which workers' stories were preserved and which were sidelined. Enslaved Black women, indentured servants, and immigrant workers played a pivotal role in the development of domestic service, yet their voices appear only through employers' accounts or through Salmon's own categorizations. The book demonstrates how genre (in this case, a sociological survey) can validate women's work by recognizing its economic value in the broader national economy, while also repeating the same hierarchies and omissions that define the archive.
“Liza Minnelli Wins Best Actress: 1973 Oscars”

“Liza Minnelli Wins Best Actress: 1973 Oscars”

Raquel Welch and Gene Hackman present Liza Minnelli with the Academy Award for Best Actress for her work in Cabaret. In their introduction, Welch makes reference to Littlefeather's speech, which had just taken place. The transcript of the video is included below:

RW: To all of us, the ladies we have just seen are unforgettable players. To me, they are more than that: they are friends.

GH: At the risk of increasing the suspense for our friends, I'd like to take a moment just to say something. The conventional wisdom is that you're born with talent. Maybe that's so, but talent is unusable and wasted without work, dedication, and a deep feeling for others. The truly talented ladies nominated for best performance by an actress are:

RW: Liza Minnelli in Cabaret. 

GH: Diana Ross in Lady Sings the Blues.

RW: Maggie Smith in Travels With My Aunt.

GH: Cicely Tyson in Sounder.

RW: Liv Ullmann in The Emigrants.

GH: And the winner is.

RW: Hope they haven't got a cause.

GH: Liza Minnelli.

LM: Thank you. Thank you very much. Making the film of "Cabaret" was one of the happiest times of my whole life and I would like to thank everybody connected with it but most especially the artistic staff: Mr. Fosse, and Fred Ebb and John Kander. And thank you for giving me this award. You've made me very happy.
The Speech Marlon Brando Didn't Give on Oscar Night

The Speech Marlon Brando Didn't Give on Oscar Night

Los Angeles Times article containing the text of the speech Marlon Brando provided Sacheen Littlefeather to be read upon his refusal of the Academy Award. The speech was not read during the ceremony due to time limitations, but Littlefeather read it to the press after the ceremony and its contents was published in several major newspapers. In the statement, Brando writes that while he does not wish to insult the Academy or its members, he would like to "focus attention" on the mistreatment of Indigenous Americans by the United States and their negative representation by Hollywood. While there have been attempts to redress the situation, Brando states that they are "too faltering and too few so I as a member in this profession do not feel that I can as a citizen of the United States accept an award here tonight." He concludes the statement by thanking the audience for their "kindness and courtesy" to Littlefeather, assuming that she would be well-receieved at the Oscars ceremony.
"Domestic" and Grover & Baker sewing machines, and "Domestic" Fashion Rooms, 1111 Chestnut St., Phila. [graphic] / Photo. by R. Newell & Son, 626 Arch St.

"Domestic" and Grover & Baker sewing machines, and "Domestic" Fashion Rooms, 1111 Chestnut St., Phila. [graphic] / Photo. by R. Newell & Son, 626 Arch St.

This 1879 stereograph by R. Newell & Son depicts the interior of Francis M. Johnson's sewing-machine showroom at 111 Chestnut Street in Philadelphia. Rows of Domestic and Grover & Baker sewing machines fill the space, surrounded by mannequins in finished dresses and children's clothes. Thread displays, patriotic bunting, and small signs reading "Please do not handle" all signal that this is a curated commercial stage rather than a site of actual labor. The showroom sells sewing machines as modern household technologies and emblems of national progress.

Interpretation Note
This stereograph does something sly, which is taking the back-breaking, poorly paid labor of sewing and turning it into something almost magical to look at. Every garment is draped perfectly, every machine is polished to a shine, and the patriotic bunting overhead is turning the room into a shrine of progress. The whole scene is arranged for middle-class shoppers to admire, not for anyone to imagine actually sitting down and working. Classification does heavy ideological work here. By ordering the space this way, the photograph sells a marketable story about women's work while leaving out the long hours, dim rooms, aching fingers, and low wages most seamstresses lived with. The mannequins drive the point home. They wear the finished dresses, but no tired, living woman is allowed in the picture. That absence is exactly the kind of archival silence where the lived conditions of working women are replaced by an illusion of effortless domestic modernity. In the end, commercial photography, like any genre, gets to choose whose labor counts as visible. Here, the machines and the pretty clothes stay on display, while the women who made them possible simply disappear.
Chain Gangs of Georgia: A Shameful State of Affairs Which the Legislature is Called Upon to Remedy.

Chain Gangs of Georgia: A Shameful State of Affairs Which the Legislature is Called Upon to Remedy.

This newspaper article in the Union Recorder (Milledgeville, GA), published in November of 1895, reports on Governor Atkinson's 1895 investigation into Georgia's chain gang system. The report describes 33 convict camps holding 795 people, including both Black and White prisoners and multiple women and girls, some under 14. The article lists daily labor assignments such as farming, sawmilling, brickmaking, turpentine work, and road construction. It notes that prisoners often worked ten hours per day and that racial and gender segregation was rarely enforced in work or sleeping quarters. Although the article frames these conditions as an administrative failure requiring legislative reform, it documents the routine exploitation of forced labor under the misdemeanor convict system.

Interpretation Note
The article presents the chain gang system as an administrative shortcoming rather than as a moral or racial catastrophe, one that can be tidied up with the right legislation. In doing so, it shows how institutional language can blunt the edges of violence and turn brutality into a mere "affair to remedy." The recitation of prisoners' ages, races, and daily tasks tacitly normalizes forced labor and sidesteps the systematic exploitation of Black men, women, and children. The casual mention that women and girls worked the same grueling jobs as men, such as ten hours of brickmaking or road building, while still being expected to cook and clean for the camp, reflects how deeply race and gender dictated the distribution and meaning of labor in these spaces. Following Marlene Manoff's thinking, the article is both a historical object and a product of an archival logic that prefers bureaucratic categories over lived human experience. When read alongside Tonia Sutherland and Zakiya Collier's work on Black archival practices, it becomes clear that records of Black labor were almost always shaped by the state's need to legitimize punishment and control. Drawing on Saidiya Hartman, the archive is shaped by the people who exercised violence, not by those who endured it. What remains are documents produced by captors and officials, which means the record is built from a perspective of power rather than from the lives of those who were exploited.
Mobilizing Woman-Power

Mobilizing Woman-Power

Harriot Stanton Blatch’s 1918 book Mobilizing Woman-Power, with a foreword by Theodore Roosevelt, calls on American women to see World War I as their war too. She insists they must step forward “as equals working with equals for a common end.” Victory, she argues, now hinges on fully mobilizing women’s labor to replace the men lost to enlistment and immigration restrictions. Drawing on the example of British and French women who had already taken up industrial, agricultural, and administrative jobs, Blatch demands that American women prove themselves just as capable. She pushes for practical state support, such as dormitories, canteens, and fair wages, because decent conditions are the only way to sustain long-term productivity. Throughout, she reframes traditional domestic skills in civic and industrial terms: efficient household management, she says, is exactly the kind of disciplined labor a nation at war needs. 

Interpretation Note
This book shows how wartime rhetoric transformed the cultural meaning of women's labor. Everyday domestic tasks such as cooking, cleaning, and nursing were suddenly framed as indispensable national service. By celebrating British and French women who entered factories, farms, munitions plants, and offices, Blatch reframes the simple act of showing up to work as proof of women's fitness for full democratic citizenship. The book urges readers to see their own labor as a patriotic contribution and themselves as active citizens whose efforts sustain the nation. In this respect, Blatch anticipates that public discourse shapes people's sense of their civic obligations. Although Blatch demands equal pay and safer conditions, she continues to frame women's work as a noble sacrifice rather than an inherent right. She valorizes traditionally feminine skills as important wartime resources without ever questioning why such work was gendered female in the first place. The tasks themselves get public prestige, yet the underlying sexual division of labor stays intact, and no one thinks to question why certain kinds of work were deemed feminine to begin with. This places Blatch's book in an intermediate position within the exhibition. The exhibition first asks how women's labor is transformed into a patriotic duty. Then, it explores how it can become feminist activism. Blatch occupies the middle ground. Her narrative is also noticeably selective. The women she holds up as exemplars are nearly always white and middle-class, who are the ones who moved into jobs vacated by enlisted men. Black domestic workers, rural women, and immigrant laundresses' toil predated the war, but in Blatch's account, their contributions are invisible. In the end, this book shows how wartime language can turn women's work from a private duty into a public service, yet leave the basic gender hierarchy in place. It also underscores that the voices in that story shape whether women's labor leads only to patriotic production or moves toward real activism.

Output Formats:

atom, dc-rdf, dcmes-xml, json, omeka-xml, rss2