Why should we let a Best Actress win determine if Rui En is good enough?
If we don’t, why do we still hope to link her good performances to wins?
Is a Best Actress win the only yardstick to good performances?
It doesn’t make sense to me. If she is good, she is good; if she is not, she is not. I think she is good, therefore in my opinion, she is good. Why should I think she is good only because someone (judges) else thinks that she is good? So is she good because she is really good or is she good because others recognise her as being good by conferring her the title of Best Actress?
I remember that we were so not hopeful of her winning the Best Actress at Star Awards. But I also remember telling my members, it doesn’t matter if she will win or not, because in our hearts, she has already won, she is our Best Actress, regardless of who the judges choose. So you cheer as loud as you think Rui En is deserving of the Best Actress title. Of course that night, we were the loudest, and the judges agreed with us, so we won.
Did she perform better because she knows she will win? Will she not perform better if she knows she will not win? No.
So what now? Is a Best Actress win no longer valuable? No.
The Best Actress win is as valuable as it is to receive the compliments of any other members of the public who come up to you and give you an approving nod for your performance. After all, the Best Actress win represents approving nods too.
So to me, for Rui En to win the Best Actress, though warmly welcomed, will not replace my own yardstick to gauge her performance. That yardstick is the moment when I connect with her role on TV, and my heart is touched by her performance. Winning is, icing on the cake, definitely nice to have but it is not everything.
What about you? What do you think? What’s your take on my 3 questions posed? Or your take on what I have shared? Share with me, I’m genuinely keen to know.