Smith vs Rock: lesson about character and professional acumen
Character makes a man. You are not what you say you are, or even what you think of yourself. You are, fundamentally, a sum of your habits. On a continuous basis.
There are single moments that test your character and your integrity. Controlling your emotions is a metric of your mental strength and of your professionalism.
At the Oscars this year there has been a breach of conduct by a distinguished guest.
One of the actors of this story rose above the entire situation, and managed not to loose control. Managed to remain cool, unstirred, on plan with his program. Did not submit to a provocation. Did not take this personally. Was smart and stoic about it.
Another one has beclouded what could have easily been a pinnacle moment of his career. Because he was not strong enough to prevent his troubling emotions from turning him impulsive, desperate and violent. In a situation which did not call for it. Driven by unrelated marital problems in his own personal life. While in public, and televised globally. His excuse was that a mild joke from the stage by a comedian was an insult on his wife.
Stoicism has a great lesson for us. Epictetus teaches:
Remember, it is not enough to be hit or insulted to be harmed, you must believe that you are being harmed. If someone succeeds in provoking you, realize that your mind is complicit in the provocation.
We’re looking at a story of one man who understands this and one who does not. We’re also looking at a story about a professional acumen.
If you are at a prestigious and important event, representing your craft, and your guild, there is certain weight on your shoulders. In such a context your act will not be yours only to carry a message. You are, in fact, an ambassador.
There is a an epitome of professionalism to be found in the story too. An ultimate paragon for how to remain in your assumed frame even under an extreme provocation. How to resist an urge to drop own frame and break own character. And held an entrusted role.
I. Breaking the Character
So if you somehow missed it, the backstory is this: Watch the uncensored moment Will Smith smacks Chris Rock on stage at the Oscars, drops F-bomb by The Guardian.
Will Smith’s rationale behind his action and behaviour was standing up for his wife and defending her feelings and dignity. But this rationale is corrupted. And it was not at all what was really driving him.
This wasn’t a case of defending a woman. Will Smith was not carrying out an act of chivalry.
There was no attack or insult on his wife from Chris Rock — let’s be clear. There was a joke, whether or not tasteful is entirely subjective, but there was no intention to insult, bully or ridicule. It is very clear from the context of the event and the insight into the kind of person and artist Chris Rock is. The joke was not designed nor meant as a provocation. And so Will’s reaction was not “just” unnecessary or disproportionate — it was unfounded.
So what happened and why?
Will Smith was not acting upon a personal anger at or a disapproval of Chris’ choice of humour (he laughed at it initially, go re-watch it). In fact, he was motivated by a desperate and powerless longing for validation form his domineering, manipulative and cheating wife.
It was not the joke that had Will provoked. It was his wife’s reaction to the joke. Will Smith stormed the stage because of a reaction, not the subject. He was not showing a strength, but a weakness.
That’s not to say that Will Smith was prohibited from having a reaction. He was prohibited from having the reaction.
It’s entirely possible that I carry my own share o biases when analysing this story, especially as a man. And so it’s good to know that my assessment is aligned with that of Candace Owens. Here’s the transcript of the most powerful part of her commentary (see 2:29 to 3:40):
(…) for the first time we saw the real Will Smith. (…) An incredibly broken man and a residual product of a directionless society that is filled with them. The kind of society that produces men that look to their more domineering wives, their tails planted firmly between their legs for instruction on what and who they ought to be in every room.
The truth is that off the big screen Will Smith has been spiritually annihilated by his wife. Don’t forget it was Jada Pinkett Smith who openly shared with the world how she cheated on her husband, remember? (…) Then she dragged her puppy dog husband out onto the world stage and told the public while making him sit through it, listen to it, and agree that she had the right to do what she did (…)
In this story Will Smith was a professional movie actor in the most prestigious event in the movie industry. And a nominee for the most prestigious award of that event. Also an idol and an icon to millions of viewers of the event. In that context, in that time and place, his profession and his fame was his primary character and role. A husband with marital problems was not.
Why did he concluded on the spot that it was appropriate to ruin the evening for everyone and why did he surrender his own status and reputation?
Will’s insecurities bested him, and he succumbed to his emotional upsurge. That’s not an attractive characteristic in a man.
II. Saving the Act
At the same event Chris Rock was a professional stage performer, entertainer, and likewise an idol and icon to millions. He was also an acting host. The master of ceremony. That was a capacity assumed by him exclusively for that event, time and place.
With that in mind, it’s critical to understand the context and the capacity at which you’re acting. And to that end, also understand the same factors at play for others around you.
And if you are an influential, well known person, your word and actions will carry an even greater weight of responsibility. Because you are an exemplar and an influencer.
Chris’ reaction makes him appear strong because he leads a narrative where he is above what’s happened. He has got it. He’s in control. He does not loose sleep over it, and does not need to keep addressing it like Will does. His lack of reaction to it is a statement louder and more powerful than any other reaction out there.
Through his lack of response Chris Rock is basically saying: Will Smith has fallen, and I cannot be bothered to confront him at his current level.
In the aftermath, he did not rush back to it. He controlled the narrative, the tempo, distanced himself from it. Gave himself time to think and assess. And by dismissing an urge to have an emotional reaction to what happened, he has been owning and controlling the entire frame of the incident. His non-reactiveness is an indicator of strength and confidence. Chris Rock is the dominant figure in the story.
Here’s a little side dish. An interesting look at how a non-reactive body language relates to confidence and dominance. Featuring Geralt of Rivia because who is a wiser teacher than a Witcher: How To Command Respect Without Speaking — The Predator Rule.
III. The Failed Reaction of the Audience
We all score embarrassing failures in life. What we then need is self imposed accountability and humility. A straightforward apology. An honest remorse. What a strong man need is not to pity or excuse himself, but to admit mistakes, integrate a lesson, and rectify.
But when we’re just bystanders, the witnesses to the story, how we react is a test for our character and professionalism.
You see, after the controversy, the organisers acted as if nothing happened, and ignored it. Will Smith was not escorted out. He was invited on stage and awarded the Oscar just shortly afterwards. The organisers failed to address his inexcusable breach of conduct. Failed to condemn it, and effectively facilitated a dangerous and shameful precedent.
And the audience failed as well. Giving a standing ovation to Will Smith after his shameful misdeed. Effectively condoning it.
Jim Carrey called it out on point:
“I was sickened. I was sickened by the standing ovation. I felt like Hollywood is just spineless en masse and it really felt like this is a really clear indication that we aren’t the cool club anymore”
See his full statement here: Jim Carrey Was SICKENED by Will Smith Oscar Moment.
Many others have tremendously downplayed the gravity of the situation when asked to comment after the event.
It’s fine if you choose to evade the question entirely, like Mel Gibson did in the end of this clip. He probably had an opinion, but kept it to himself, which is fine, really.
Also, you are always entitled not to have an opinion, and admitting it is perfectly fine. Unless in a matter which you are responsible for addressing due to your job title.
But playing ignorant and deflecting the question with statements that completely miss the point and ignore the problem is a whole another issue altogether. And that’s what most of celebrities opted for when asked to comment after the event. Jeremy Piven, for example, started really decently as if he had a point to make, but then he summed it all up with:
“(…) and I thought the whole night was miraculous because WIll did his thing, and then got up there and accepted the award, and then explained himself beautifully. So it was like… it was all just felt like, uh, some sort of a miracle.”
See the interview, and notice the part at 2:40 time mark: Jeremy Piven DEFENDS Chris Rock After Will Smith Oscar Moment (Exclusive).
That is exactly the kind of dissmisive and sugarcoated non-opinion that Jim Carrey was sickened by. The kind which also endorses what should not be endorsed.
Remember, you always have an option not to have an opinion. Or to have one but keep it to yourself.
However, if you don’t have one, or if you’re not willing to be honest about the one you do have, then don’t just vent your undetermined, inconclusive, or dishonest nonsense. For it might make you appear gullible or deceiving at best. And at worst it might obscure a true problem, abolish accountability and harm others with a wrong idea or an unfair trial for compensation.
Understanding this principle will help you to build your professional acumen.
