As I pointed out in my first Golden Globes wrap-up, mainstream journalists are some of the most self-serious d-bags in the world, and they have no idea how to write about comedy, so of course they saw only controversy. People are used to seeing movie stars get their butts kissed at awards shows, so Ricky Gervais cleverly took the roast approach instead (I read in Popular Sciencethat surprise is an important element of humor). Most of the audience understood that, and it didn’t seem like that big a deal.
(Slight Digression: One notable exception here was Judd Apatow, who was mildly critical of Gervais, which for a comedy writer/lover is like seeing your parents fight.)
There was a lot of blah blah blah about who was offended and whether Gervais would be invited back (who hosts an awards show three years in a row anyway?), but now Gervais himself has responded, the way all true gangstas respond, on his blog (via WarmingGlow):
Obviously the rumour that the organizers stopped me going out on stage for an hour is rubbish. I did every link I was scheduled to do. The reason why the gaps were uneven is because when I got the rundown I was allowed to choose who I presented to. I obviously chose the spots that I had the best gags for. They couldn’t move around the order but I could move around however I wanted.
All the same conspiracy theories as last year too… “So and so was offended”… “hasn’t been invited back yet”… exactly the same as last time. “Paul McCartney was furious”…no he wasn’t. And nor was Tim Allen and Tom Hanks. I was drinking with them after.
There was really no reason to watch last night’s Golden Globes other than to see what Ricky Gervais was going to do, and the man did not disappoint. He was ballsy, but more importantly, he was funny. He began the night ripping on The Tourist and the Hollywood Foreign Press (the elephants in the room, let’s face it), and proceeded to actually be funny every time he was onstage, making reference to John Travolta being closeted (“‘I Love You Phillip Morris’ — two heterosexual actors pretending to be gay – which is the exact opposite of some famous Scientologists … probably.”) and introducing Bruce Willis as “Ashton Kutcher’s dad.”
Ricky Gervais did most of the obvious jokes (Charlie Sheen, Mel Gibson, Etc.), but he executed them brilliantly. To host this kind of Hollywood circle jerk without coming off as a massive tool would be a feat; to actually be funny, entertaining, and honest was nothing short of a miracle. A gay, scientology miracle. (pic via
Of course, there’s a reason people in Hollywood are famous for being thin-skinned pussies, and the reason is that Hollywood people are thin-skinned pussies. Actually, that’s not quite true. Most of the stars seemed to understand the way jokes work (especially Christian Bale). It seems to be the media that’s largely responsible for misinterpreting playful ball-busting for conflict (or deliberately stoking controversy). How say you, O Great Greek Twat Chorus?
WashingtonPost: “Are we at war with England? If not, then why have we been subjected to two years of Gervais hosting the Golden Globe Awards, witnessing a growing hostility between the British comedian and a resentful audience of celebs?” [This writer should be sentenced to 30 hours of Gervais-free Globe coverage]
NYTimes: “It’s so rare for presenters to be at open war with their host, and at times it almost looked as if Mr. Gervais and Mr. Bale were intent on bringing to Hollywood some of the incivility and extremism that veins political discourse. Theirs was certainly the most conspicuous wisp of conflict of the night, and that is unusual.” [Oh NY Times, you win the Golden Globe for Most New York Timesyest]. “Trashing the association that feeds you, on the other hand, is bad form, or bad politics.” [Not true. To not acknowledge that the HFPA is a joke would just be dishonest. Also, who gets fed by an association?]
LATimes: Headline: ‘Golden Globes: Host Ricky Gervais was just too nasty.’ The host pulled no punches, but he should have knocked himself out. [What does that even mean? Is this a Fighter review?] The opposite of dull and deferential is not snotty and abusive. [Likewise, the opposite of dull and uninformed is not humorless and c*nty.]
FoxNews: Ricky Gervais draws more gasps than grins at the Golden Globes. [But neither from me, because I had a big wiener in my mouth!]
BaltimoreSun: The normally clever-to-brilliant Ricky Gervais resorted to nonstop insult comedy as “the host” of the Golden Globes last night. He appeared to be auditioning for a dinner-theater version of “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” His main game was “Get the Guest.” When he wasn’t putting down easy targets like Charlie Sheen or joking about the vanity of “Sex and the City” stars and the age of Cher, his staggeringly lame fallback position was to list the lesser credits of A-listers like Bruce Willis.
You’re right, that was staggeringly lame! Maybe you should write his jokes next year, Mr. Guy-who-thinks-Who’s-Afraid-of-Virginia-Woolf-references are timely! Anyway, I’m done popping these queef balloons, it’s starting to stink in here. Here’s a list of the winners:
As I pointed out in my first Golden Globes wrap-up, mainstream journalists are some of the most self-serious d-bags in the world, and they have no idea how to write about comedy, so of course they saw only controversy. People are used to seeing movie stars get their butts kissed at awards shows, so Ricky Gervais cleverly took the roast approach instead (I read in Popular Science that surprise is an important element of humor). Most of the audience understood that, and it didn’t seem like that big a deal.
MORNING LINKS
