so, the oscars.
thought it was a pretty decent show. not hilarious or incredibly moving. but pretty good nonetheless. glad crash won. all the people who think crash was too implausible miss the point.
a couple things stand out in my mind. one is the seriousness with which hollywood takes itself. the self-congratualatory montage of movies which challenged or at least laid bare discriminatory norms was both relevant and over-indulgent. relevant because hollywood has done some of that. over-indulgent because -- as jon stewart made clear when he so deftly punctured the bubble of feel-goodery with the comment, "and none of these problems were an issue ever again" -- hollywood tends to only go so far in changing the social structures that make discriminatory norms possible in the first place. it's these pathological structures which make a place like hollywood possible at all. so they have a vested interest in it not changing too much.
i thought the clooney "i'm proud to be a member of this academy" speech, like the montage, can be read as both relevant and over-indulgent. let me say, however, that the movie for which clooney won the award, syriana, was WAY more relevant than over-indulgent. in fact, i'd say it wasn't indulgent in the least, but rather a think piece put together in such a way as to spur creative and corrective action.
and i have to say -- i admire clooney's forthrightness about his subject position in all this. he fully admits to being a privileged, ridiculously over-wealthy member of an elite group of americans who don't ever really have to think too hard about injustice and discrimination. but in knowing that he's both a part of the problem and, because he chooses to be, a part of the solution, i find him -- and others like him -- to be relevant. even if, at times, they all seem preachy.
this "hey i know i'm ridiculous but i also do some good" persona is refreshing -- and this brings me to my second point. i wonder if jon stewart himself could use a bit of it. now, i know, it's not cool for a liberal to be critical of jon stewart. and i have to admit that he is VERY VERY good at exposing the dual subject positions of members of hollywood who both benefit from and attack the economic and social structures which confer star status and riches upon them. he performs the same kind of function with regards to members of the media, who are very similar to members of hollywood -- maybe worse, since they take the money and then advocate no change at all to the system.
does jon stewart do enough to locate himself within the system and make his audience aware of it? i often will answer yes to this question -- but then wonder to what extent he's simply reproducing these same conditions with a slight enough difference to fool us all into thinking he's mostly attacking the system and benefiting to a lesser degree.
dunno -- thoughts?
thought it was a pretty decent show. not hilarious or incredibly moving. but pretty good nonetheless. glad crash won. all the people who think crash was too implausible miss the point.
a couple things stand out in my mind. one is the seriousness with which hollywood takes itself. the self-congratualatory montage of movies which challenged or at least laid bare discriminatory norms was both relevant and over-indulgent. relevant because hollywood has done some of that. over-indulgent because -- as jon stewart made clear when he so deftly punctured the bubble of feel-goodery with the comment, "and none of these problems were an issue ever again" -- hollywood tends to only go so far in changing the social structures that make discriminatory norms possible in the first place. it's these pathological structures which make a place like hollywood possible at all. so they have a vested interest in it not changing too much.
i thought the clooney "i'm proud to be a member of this academy" speech, like the montage, can be read as both relevant and over-indulgent. let me say, however, that the movie for which clooney won the award, syriana, was WAY more relevant than over-indulgent. in fact, i'd say it wasn't indulgent in the least, but rather a think piece put together in such a way as to spur creative and corrective action.
and i have to say -- i admire clooney's forthrightness about his subject position in all this. he fully admits to being a privileged, ridiculously over-wealthy member of an elite group of americans who don't ever really have to think too hard about injustice and discrimination. but in knowing that he's both a part of the problem and, because he chooses to be, a part of the solution, i find him -- and others like him -- to be relevant. even if, at times, they all seem preachy.
this "hey i know i'm ridiculous but i also do some good" persona is refreshing -- and this brings me to my second point. i wonder if jon stewart himself could use a bit of it. now, i know, it's not cool for a liberal to be critical of jon stewart. and i have to admit that he is VERY VERY good at exposing the dual subject positions of members of hollywood who both benefit from and attack the economic and social structures which confer star status and riches upon them. he performs the same kind of function with regards to members of the media, who are very similar to members of hollywood -- maybe worse, since they take the money and then advocate no change at all to the system.
does jon stewart do enough to locate himself within the system and make his audience aware of it? i often will answer yes to this question -- but then wonder to what extent he's simply reproducing these same conditions with a slight enough difference to fool us all into thinking he's mostly attacking the system and benefiting to a lesser degree.
dunno -- thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment