RE: OSCARS

[grok <grok@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2002-03-25 at 21:12, Austin, Andrew wrote:
>
> When recognizing somebody's performance the point is how they play the
> character. The character - despicable or otherwise - is not the issue.
> Marlon Brando played an intensely despicable Stanley Kowalski in Williams' A
> Streetcar Named Desire (Kowalski was a rapist), but the performance was one
> of the standout performances of his generation (Bogart won the Oscar that
> year for The African Queen). If Washington's performance was superb - I have
> not seen the movie, but from everything I hear every scene was showcased his
> skill - then he deserved the award.

Typically capitalist 'winner-take-all' horseraces like The Oscars seem
to me to be a main problem with judging 'worth' per se -- right from the
get-go. Clearly we are making a mistake if we even appear to be
uncritically accepting this rigid hierarchicalization of 'value', which
allows precisely only ONE 'worthy' at the top of each category. And we
also have this very same problem with the 'judging' of political
candidates in 'first-past-the-post' bourgeois electioneering as well.
It is not a trivial problem I pose here.

Marxists are already only 'batting 500' when they're not constantly
conscious of this, and working to change such perniciousness (of course
it's hard). We should always be clear on, and about, the
'one-dimensionality' of bourgeois relations of this typical, frankly
vulgar, kind.




-- grok.






~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.