Monday, January 12, 2009

The Not-So Golden Globes

As an Entertainment reporter I am supposed to care about events like the Golden Globes. They bring out the very best in Hollywood, they generally inspire a week's worth, if not more, of press coverage, and they provide a light at the end of the dim tunnel that is holiday break.
And yet, after all of those reasons and more, I still don't like awards season. This year's Golden Globes only served to reinforce that feeling.
What exactly are the standards that voters use when deciding who the winners will be? Why is it that the highest grossing musical movie of all time (Mamma Mia!) didn't take home a single award? Why is it that actor's work in big budget and high grossing films seems to always get overlooked in favor of the "out of nowhere" independent dramas (i.e. SALLY HAWKINS - HAPPY-GO-LUCKY win)?
Why is it that half of the shows/movies up for consideration have yet to saturate the public sphere? If they are so damn good shouldn't people know about them? Instead the Golden Globes sum up everything that is wrong with Hollywood: They're elitist, exclusionary, and overblown.
More articles commented on star's outfits in the post-Globes media than the actual winners and losers. What does that say?
Writers had no problem ripping apart Miley Cyrus' dress, but they didn't want to touch the fact that the 16 year old was nominated for an AWARD.

No comments: