Monday, September 19, 2011

What Septemeber 16th-19th Mean To Me: Award Shows. I Fucking Hate You

I have an annoying quirk.  When I feel that the mass public consumes something utterly pointless and dumb, yet actually takes it seriously, I can't seem to keep my dissent to myself.  In fact, it probably produces too many annoying rants that my poor friends have to sit through while they wonder why the hell I care so much. 

On that note, the Emmy's were on last night.

Hey, I didn't say it, Maurice Jones- Drew did. 

Allow me to explain why I think awards shows might be a microcosm of why we suck as a society.  Now, I know I'm in the minority here, I know tons of people enjoy them (I actually used to be one of them) and discuss the results and the "snubs" by the water cooler, so I'm willing to admit I'm the asshole here...anyway...

My hate for awards shows is pretty much embodied in the following quote from this article:

"After weeks of speculation over who would win for best actor in a drama (the long-denied Jon Hamm for "Mad Men" or Hugh Laurie for "House"?), Kyle Chandler's name was called for his performance as a Texas high school football coach in the final season of "Friday Night Lights."

For the record, I love both Mad Men and Friday Night Lights.  But why does this quote bother me?  Let's break it down starting with the first line "after weeks of speculation," which obviously suggests that some assholes were actually spending WEEKS discussing this and worrying about it.  There are numerous wars in the world, our country is on the brink of financial failure, but ummm, people are spending weeks discussing who is the best actor in a television show! Que Lastima!  Secondly, should I feel bad for "the long denied Jon Hamm?"  Last I checked, Jon Hamm was rich, extremely good looking, and the star of the TV show.  The only thing he's probably denying is the 8th beautiful woman who tries to fuck him on a random Sunday night because his dick is too sore from the first seven ( Sorry, Jon.  I've actually heard you in interviews and you seem like a good dude, none of this is your fault.  I love Don Draper. Forgive me!)  You know when I'll feel bad for Jon Hamm?  When he suddenly wakes up and has my life. 

OK, you're right, enough with the self-pity.

Let's discuss what they are actually "awarding" during shows like the Oscars and Emmys (for the sake of this argument, I'll just limit it to these two shows).  Now, last time I checked, taste was completely arbitrary.  There are no numbers, no empirical evidence that proves one performance or one show better than another.  You might, personally, like a show better than another, but that doesn't necessarily prove that something is actually "better." And let's set aside the fact that humanity decided to weigh drama more heavily than comedy (for example, you wanna know whats hard?  Playing Ace Ventura for two hours, yet that would be a laughable Oscar nod).  In fact, the only thing that could pass for empirical evidence (In the case of TV, ratings, and for movies, box office retention rates) are routinely ignored, and sometimes with films, the box office numbers actually act as a detriment to Oscar chances.  Yet, despite these facts, I still hear regular people CARE about these results.  In fact, if I had a dime for everytime someone approached me and said "Can you believe Jeff McFuckamee got snubbed for his amazing performance in "Who Gives A Fucking Shit?"" I'd be a wealthy man. 

On that subject...


In fact, it's crazy to understand why a regular person gives even a smidge of shit.  For those who don't know, the Emmy's and Oscar's aren't decided by public votes.  The actors, directors, producers, and whoever are VOTING FOR THEMSELVES.  So, essentially, its a nationally televised event, put on by the rich and famous, to celebrate being rich and famous, and the peasants all gawk and are tricked into giving a shit.  Not to mention, this stuff is incredibly political and votes are lobbied for on a regular basis.  You know what would be the most honest three hours of TV history?  If the Emmys and Oscars actually showed the word what they really are.  It would be a really simple show:

Three hours of all these people in their nice dresses and tuxedos patting themselves on the back.  Yes, for three straight hours.  Now, naturally, their hands will probably get tired (try patting yourself on the back, its uncomfortable), so they may take breaks to smoke cigars and discuss their bank accounts.

Matt Damon: "So Leo, how much did you make for Inception?"
Leonardo DiCaprio: "You know, I don't really remember.  Probably alot."
Matt Damon: "Who cares, we're rich!"
Leonardo DiCaprio: "So true!"
<big laugh, fist bump, go find JJ Abrahms and ask him similar questions>

Most folks will find this boring.  But, for the record, if this actually occured, I promise to do...

For that same three hours.

Now, let me get something straight.  If these actors, producers, and directors want to have an award ceremony where they congratulate each other on being teh awesum, by all means, go ahead and have it.  But to parade yourself on national television? 

I know, right Bert?

Maurice, come on, I know you feel strongly about this, but its a family blog.

Fine, OK, go on.

So, in short, for the life of me, I don't really understand the fuss over these shows, and why people get emotionally involved.  In fact, why is their competition at all?  This isn't sports, everybody is winning anyway.  Do we have to compete over EVERYTHING in the name of inequality?  Ahh, apparently we do.  So, fuck us all, I suppose.

OK, my fingers are starting to hurt from all my purposeful typing.  I'm gonna go relax and contemplate why I just spent 20 minutes writing this at all. 

Back to self-deprecation tomorrow!

No comments:

Post a Comment