Golden Globes

As a general fact, I don't really tune in to awards shows when they air. They're notoriously boring and even when I give myself a chance to like them, the aforementioned fact is nearly always confirmed. Plus, deep down, they award the worst in humanity--self-glory, shallow accomplishments relative to what's actually virtuous, and idolization. There's too many false idols in this world, we don't need yet another awards show to continue proving it.

But I did catch a little of the Golden Globes last night. Not enough to rattle off who won what, but a few minutes here or there. Mostly I read about Ricky Gervais' hosting performance. I must confess, as a fan of comedy and a practitioner myself, I think Gervais is just about as sharp as it gets. He's super quick with practically unparalleled wit and a solid knack for surprise by way of the sarcastic remark. All things I appreciate in good humor. So on the record, I'm a fan.

But in reading the reviews, it seemed like he treated it like a roast more than an awards show. Refreshing I can imagine to viewers, but certainly not appreciated by his industry peers. And that was generally the consensus I got from the reviews and also the feeling I had during certain segments I watched.

I gotta confess, the more I watch him and observe his comedy style and tactics...the more I gotta wonder, is this guy really a happy man? Now some might say, "well he's a comedian, so by definition....NO". I appreciate such an opinion. As a comedian myself I can relate and I would agree to an extent that there's a correlation (though it isn't necessary). But there's a paradox I've noticed in him, and that is an incessant need to call everyone and everything out on what's wrong with it/them. What's his actual goal or point? Doth Gervais protest too much?

Now on the one hand, this is necessary for any truly funny comedian to be able to do. That I would agree with. But it seems like it's really a personal thing for Gervais. He simply cannot NOT rag on his own industry and peers around him. Satire is a great thing, maybe one of the best especially when it comes to Hollywood. But when the joke is aimed at someone's addiction, that, for all you know, was a very painful and damaging experience (and more than a decade ago)...I have to ask, what is your real intention here?

Now here's the thing. I will fully concede that it's really really hard to find any sympathy for Hollywood celebrities when your fake chest got you the job, or your parents paved the way for you (Keifer, Paltrow, Jolie etc.). And for the most part, let's face it, they're not really seen as virtuous people, and it's probably safe to say that they don't even like each other deep down. So Gervais deserves some credit for calling it out. But it's the different between making a point with jabbing humility, and hammering away at it with apparent malice disguised as "satire".

As I watched portions of the show and read up on some of the barbs Gervais threw out, I realized...funny though he is, he's really just mean. I don't know him, but I can't imagine he's a nice man at the end of the day. And I say that because the real sign of good chracter is when you can be nice to the people even when you don't like them. I don't at all think that people like Justin Bieber, or the Jersey Shore cast, for example, deserve ANY attention and recognition whatsoever. I do not think they're talented or contribute anything to the betterment of society; in fact, they make it worse. That is MY opinion. But there's also no urge within me to go on live television to broadcast those sentiments as if my opinion is that important. Mind you, I'm convicted that I'm right about them. But there's a gauge I have that tells me "Everyone pretty much knows, so it's futile to make the point".

Anyone can love the people they like, how hard is that? I've noticed that truly humble people who have good character are somehow able to love (or at least respect) the people that they don't like. Gervais seems to be something of an oxymoron, have you noticed? Think about it. He goes on record to criticize Hollywood for doing the very thing that he does in his criticism: tearing others down for a bit of self-glorification. Only Gervais disguises it in the form of "comedic satire" which, for some strange reason, gets passed by those just as non-reflective or jaded as he is.

Now perhaps he would respond, "I don't do it for self-glorification...I don't need to do that." Well, then the question becomes, "Why do it then?". It's the difference between mere criticsm, and offering a solution; between merely tearing down versus tearing down IN ORDER to build up. If Gervais' real deep-seeded wish is to see a more humble and virtuous industry around him, perhaps the better route is merely to just showcase good character and humility himself rather than pointing out how awful everyone and everything is.

He's gone on record to say that "there's nothing you shouldn't joke about, it depends on the joke". I'm not sure if I really understand his point here...I assume he's drawing a distinction between the subject matter and the actual punchline (what's said); and I would agree that that can mean the different between funny vs. offensive. But I have to wonder if he really knows the consequences what he's saying. Absolute remarks like that usually come from people that absolutely don't love or revere anything. That unabashed mentality of recklessness in the name of being bold or edgy surely can't make for a happy existence. If somethings aren't sacred or inherenty right or wrong, then that makes for a pretty awful world.

People with this mentality seem to always be out to prove a point. Like most everyone else, these people die eventually and no one remembers them, except for their anger. Not a great legacy. It is builders that people remember. Not mere critics.