It was the year 1977 when the playwright and writer Paddy Chayefsky, At the Oscar ceremony of that year (he was in charge of delivering the statuette for best script), he took the time to give a “personal opinion.” “I’m fed up,” he said, “of those … that use the Academy Awards for the dissemination of their personal political propaganda ».
He “suggested” then Vanessa Redgrave (who, when she took the stage before she had thanked the members of the Academy for “not being intimidated by a small group of Zionist thugs”) that his prize did not mean any “crucial moment” for history . “It does not require proclamation, and a simple thanks would have been enough,” he concluded among the respectable applause.
In 2020, it was Ricky Gervais in charge of presenting the Golden Globes gala. “If you earn a prize tonight, do not use it as a means to give a political speech,” he said. «You are not in a position to give lessons to the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world ». “If you win,” he continued, “go up here, accept your trophies, thank your agent and your God and gone to take, okay?”
Of the first intervention 48 years ago; of the second, five. But it seems that nothing has changed in all this time: a few days ago the Goya ceremony in Granada was celebrated and few were the ones who resisted the temptation to dispense with the ostentation of their ideas, which morally report greater benefits, not only the public applause of the public. Not even Miguel Ríos, who shouted a misplaced “Free Palestine” at the end of the musical performance that opened the gala, was able to do so.
The gala has ceased to be a show, neglecting its function of entertaining
The gala has ceased to be a show, neglecting its function of entertaining, to become a showcase in which actors and actresses look, pleased, their best galas and their luxurious beliefs (‘Luxury Beliefs’).
The phrase, which appeared for the first time in an article by Rob Henderson in the ‘New York Post’, designates and perfectly explains the unprejudized moral exhibitionism of our artists. At a time when material goods are already increasingly affordable for anyone (traveling away, a good car, signature bags), high classes need to continue showing their status and differentiate. How to achieve it? Linking it to beliefs.
The main problem is that these ideas or opinions confer status to those belonging to these high classes (actors, for example) at a very low cost, but do affect, however, the lowest classes, which adopt them. Thus, the fundamental purpose of our artists in that scenario, award in hand, was not to do something to solve the problem of housing or immigration, but also differentiating, showing that the class they belong to is not ours, that their ideas They are morally better than those of others.
But sustaining those ideas does not report them more than benefits, it is not heroic because there is no cost for them (as much as wearing a very expensive watch or a signature suit). It is what has misunderstood empathy, as the essayist Leslie Jamison explains, which can produce a feeling of realization: that, as something has been felt, it has already been done. “The danger of empathy,” he tells us, “is not simply that we can make us feel bad, but that we can make us feel good, which in turn can encourage us to think about empathy as an end in itself instead of be part of a process ».
Thus, Richard Gere, is a put, felt very strong up there and the suffering of immigrants looking for a home and, satisfied, left with his Goya in Jet private to his mansion of impassable walls. ‘Good Job, Richard’.
#Rebeca #Argudo
