by Owen » Tue Mar 03, 2020 3:18 pm
Everything is so political now...
These awards are a self reproducing system: the bigger the platform, the more reach it gets, and therefore it is tempting to award not for the reasons the put forward (i.e. for quality), but for political ones. These awards and the like are then shown as trophies and warrants of a film's quality, which it is not. The most disappointing part is how people are still fooled by it.
Quality of course plays a role, but not the most important one...
Here the political stances will hide the real discussion that should have taken place, that about the absolute quality of the works presented. This is unsurprising however: how many other ceremonies have only shone by the gossip or provocative actions? All in all, the entertainment value supersedes anything else, in my opinion, this is what I understand by reading the article you linked, fish.
And Polanski's case is not a simple moral judgment at all.
EDIT: Yeah, and the article is wrong about some things:
"France seems to be saying that anyone who speaks out about the racism, homophobia, misogyny, and especially the sexual abuse issues that are rampant in their industry should not speak."
Absolutely wrong.
"Out of 1,700 in the room that night, only ten left. Everyone else is complicit in the celebration, most even clapped at the announcement"
Yeah of course, everything is black or white.
"In France, feminist is seen as a dirty word."
Are you kidding me?
"In the end, it is Adèle Haenel and the women of Portrait of a Lady on Fire who won, because their actions have become the voice of the night, even if the film has remained unrecognized."
No, Polanski won.
"By spitting in the face of survivors, all the Césars have accomplished..."
I love the word survivors. Do the victims of abuse, rape and violence usually die? (hint: no, so calling them survivors is pursuing the same sensationalist politics that drive the world now, replacing meaningful debates with battles of egos and loud voices)