Sunday, December 19, 2010

So Why The Golden Globes?

There was a time not so many years ago when nobody cared to notice the Golden Globe Awards.
When I was TV Critic at The Hamilton Spectator in the 1970s I never wrote about such shenanigans.
No network bothered to carry the awards --instead an independent network of peripheral stations like Hamilton's CHCH bicycled one lowly tape of the ceremonies from station to station and CHCH would run it Sunday nights around midnight weeks later.
My, how times have changed. And all for the worse.
I blame everything on all those ersatz entertainment shows which are packaged as a screaming stew of sleazy headlines and not much else.
And all of a sudden the Golden Globes are being noticed.
This year both The Toronto Star and The Globe And Mail got into the act although The Star was careful to note the Hollywood Foreign Press Association is comprised of just 90 "journalists".
I met one the last time I was in L.A. He was my taxi driver. Another time a waitress told me she was a member but I'm not sure I trusted her.
This season the Golden Globes have chosen to include among the nominees two films which have bombed with critics and audiences.
First up there's Cher's musical stinker Burlesque which is up for best picture (Musical).
And also nominated for best picture (comedy) is that dud The Tourist.
Golden Globe judges were apparently flown to Vegas for a freebie that included interviews with the film's star, the enduring Cher.Now this isn't the first time the Golden Globes have been under intense critical scrutiny.
Would you believe that the one and only Pia Zadora once got a statutette as best newcomer?
So why does NBC insist on telecasting such trash? Because by forking over $6 million for the TV rights NBC can rake in as much as $25 million in advertising revenues, that's why.

No comments: