Did you watch the Golden Globes? Did you feel – as apparently many did — that Ricky Gervais should be criticized/ridiculed for NOT being tasteless enough? Do you also feel that he was just too tame and therefore contributed to a dull awards show? Here’s what the UK press had to say about his performance. According to the BBC “A ‘respectful and restrained’ Ricky Gervais lacked the bite of last year”…
To which I say, come on. This is a man who cannot get a break unless, a la Stephen Colbert, it’s all a big surreal joke and we’ll never really know if we’re being punk’d or he is. In my opinion? When they hired Gervais last year – for the second time — the Hollywood Foreign Press Association knew what it was getting into with a guy long known for his acid tongue. You don’t enlist a mind that quick, who continuously asserts that he’s got absolutely nothing to lose, and then expect him to tip-toe around. Of course the HFPA knew exactly what was going to happen. Moreover even though it was deemed a “disaster” last year, and everyone reveled in the “horror” of it all, they got quite a bit of attention. Which we know is more often than not a good thing. In Hollywood, at least.
But if the HFPA really felt like that, if he really did go way over the line, then fine – don’t use him again. Oh wait – you say you’re thinking about it? He wasn’t that bad after all? Hiring him again makes you all look easy-going and most importantly, edgy? And it might bring you better ratings? Oh, okay. That’s cool. So bring him back. But NOW, if his every word isn’t laced with poison, his every paragraph not a baffling attack on the unsuspecting, don’t get mad. If he’s not particularly monstrous, you better not complain. You say he was “flat”? Which is not “acceptable”? Sort of ridiculous, in my mind.
I thought Gervais did a good job, in fact. I enjoyed it and most importantly, he got us from one awards presentation to the next. Isn’t that the point? And isn’t that really the point when you’re at a podium surrounded by people actively eating and drinking? Isn’t the low-key thing why the Golden Globes was never considered a big network TV draw anyway – until now?
As for the awards themselves, with the exception of Martin Scorcese taking home the Globe for Hugo, nothing else was a great big surprise. Well, that and the fact that Laura Dern won for Enlightened which of course she may very well have deserved, but I had hoped either Tina Fey or Zooey Deschanel would somehow pocket that trophy. Perhaps the HFPA wanted to shock everyone and go with a total rookie program that all of forty-six people have watched so far. Like when they gave the Funny or Singing Best Actor award to Matt LeBlanc (whose new show I love). The Artist and Jean Dujardin? Got precisely the recognition they deserved.
By the way – one of the criticisms that gets lobbied the Globes’ way, fairly or unfairly, is the fact that there’s not enough going on. Do you agree? Would you rather in-show sketches like we have with the PCAs and the Oscars? Let us know your thoughts.
And of course, the most important question – who looked best?
1) Laura Dern
2) Angelina Jolie
3) Octavia Spencer
4) Emma Stone