Friday, December 10, 2004

People's Choice? Why not Peoples' Choice?

Hello, fair readers,

Michael Moore sent me yet another email the other day asking me to support him in his quest to win the People’s Choice Award for best film for Fahrenheit 911 (he’s always writing to me, that Michael). In my best south-east Jersey accent, I says to myself, “Hey hey Mikie,” I says. “We’ll see what we can do.” (On a side note, Silvia and I have recently discussed the differences between "people" and "peoples" and I have realized that I would personally feel more comfortable with the idea that we are voting for these awards as peoples, not as some kind of a coherent people. But whatever.)

Now it seems to me that there are some other excellent films nominated for the award, but I do like the idea of such a critical documentary gaining legitimacy in a very public forum. I always felt that the post-debate online votes, where moveon.org got Democrats to flood the information highways in support of Kerry-Edwards, were cool manifestations of high-tech grassroots organization, even if they were statistically insignificant. If you’re interested, you can vote at the People’s Choice site. And let me just add a quick plug for the Pantene Favorite Hair nomination. Penelope Cruz’s fetching mane is such an obvious choice, I feel. I know I can count on you to do the right thing.

Have you guys seen the study by graduate students at Berkeley which reanalyzed statistics from Florida? I’m tired of hoping, sort of, and yet hope continues to flirtatiously bat its tempting eyelashes. I’m not sure what site this is that I’m linking to, but I can’t seem to access the newspaper where this originally appeared.

I hope everyone's well.

posted by EMP @ 10:45 AM   2 Comments

2 Comments:

At December 22, 2004 at 3:46 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I share your sentiments, Elena, but I must take issue with one thing:

(you) like the idea of such a critical documentary gaining legitimacy in a very public forum.

If we accept that a People's Choice Award bestows legitimacy on anyone or anything, we establish a bad precedent for our already crumbling country.

No, no, no--don't get me wrong. I'm no snob ranting on an ivory soapbox about the evils of Britney Spears, and while I'm not a member of the particular Everybody that loves Raymond, I've certainly got nothing against Everybody. And I'm a devotee of many of Moore's fellow nominees, namely The O.C..

The problem is I've lost my faith in the People's ability to Choose. I'f I'm going to continue bickering and burning over--and most importantly rejecting--the winner of the National People's Choice Award, the American Presidency, then I certainly can't accept CBS's version.

To paraphrase Club for Growth, leave it to the Latte-Drinking, Volvo-Driving, NPR-Listening, Tattooed, Oscar-Voting, Leftist Elites. We can depend on them to make the right call, at least.

Anyway, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't: just as Mass was given but one win by the Cosmos this year, and the Red Sox nation might hand back the World Series trophy to give it to that other underdog, I might collapse under the irony if the People Choose Michael Moore, but they didn't Choose John Kerry.

I weep for The People's Choice Awards, for award shows in general, for This Country, and for countries in general.

--Desperate Housewife

 
At January 2, 2005 at 6:30 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree, Desperate Housewife, that Elena's is perhaps a manifestation of undue confidence in a people who have already been resoundingly discredited.

But might it have been something else, as well? Might the presidential election in the US be well on its way to becoming an awards show? How far are presidential candidates from the red carpet, in the end? You connect them metaphorically, but a metaphor, I fear, may not be strong enough. We read about the stylists hired to tame the candidates' fly-away manes, the image consultants; we know that some people were not supported by the party because they were too un-electable, which often simply meant not beautiful enough, I think. Silvio Berlusconi (granted, not in the US, but insistently and vociferously using rhetoric that embarassingly and honestly exposes US-style ideology) made some crazy comments this week, apropos of politics and beauty:

"Given the possibilities of today's cosmetic surgery, I think that those who can afford it have a duty to present themselves in the best possible way," the tycoon-turned-statesman told the press conference in Rome. "It's a form of respect."

He added: "I have taken one of the choices of modern life. It is a way of showing respect to those who share your life - your family. It is a way of showing respect to those who expect you to represent them on an international and national stage."

So perhaps we should vote for Michael Moore not, in the end, to bestow legitimacy, but to further erode it. If the people choose Fahrenheit 911, but also chose GW, perhaps we finally understand that the people can only be trusted with the logic of the silver screen. If the people choose to vote for a documentary that tells them that their president lied to them and is responsible for the deaths of innumerable innocent people, but voted for him anyway, maybe WE can understand that the people were always voting, awards-show style, for the guy who put on the better show. That realization, in turn, will put us farther along the road towards nominating Warren Beatty or Martin Sheen for president, which honestly, would perfectly fuse the People's Various Choices and perhaps, Obi-Wan, is our only hope.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home