The Golden Globes are my ...
Question: The Golden Globes are my favorite awards show, mainly because they put TV and movie stars all together under one roof — and give them lots of booze. They can always be counted upon for great moments! But if one thing always irks me, it's the supporting actor TV category, which doesn't differentiate between drama, comedy or miniseries. And we end up with a field like this for Best Supporting Actor:
Naveen Andrews,
Lost;
Paul Newman,
Empire Falls;
Jeremy Piven,
Entourage;
Randy Quaid,
Elvis;
Donald Sutherland,
Commander in Chief. Seriously? We're putting Jeremy Piven's delightfully shallow superagent up against Andrews' painstaking dramatic portrayal of a tortured (no pun intended) former Iraqi soldier? In the same category? I am sure they must do this to get the time down on the program, but if they must lump TV-movies and miniseries together, can't they at least separate between comedy and drama (two drastically different media)? That would only add two awards to the program, maybe 10 minutes. Is that really too much to ask? I can't believe I let stuff like this get to me, but it does!
Answer: Of all the baffling inconsistencies of the Golden Globe nominations, these supporting actor TV categories are traditionally the worst. If they're not going to separate comedy and drama programs in this category, they should at least separate TV-movie performances (in which marquee casting like Paul Newman's often skew the results) from those in weekly series. Otherwise, I'm not sure I want to see more awards given out at the Globes. I don't take the awards that seriously, and like Sarah, I'm much more into watching the party.
On another front, Brooke gripes: "I'm sure you will have a million similar sentiments, but why the snub to Arrested Development and last year's Best Actor, Jason Bateman? This season has been right on par with every other one. I look at the other nominees and while I can't say that any of them are undeserving, I just don't feel any of them are on the same level that AD is. I've never seen Weeds and only caught a few episodes of Entourage, but Curb had an uneven season at best. My Name Is Earl and Everybody Hates Chris are good twists on the gunky-sweet sitcom, but still play right on that pattern of having places where you know it's "OK" to laugh, and I'll just assume you've already heard the 'not a comedy' argument against Desperate Housewives. Still, I understand most of the nominations, but I'm completely baffled by the snub. Hasn't the Hollywood Foreign Press made a huge mistake?"
The mistake here is in taking these nominations that seriously. The Globes are all about buzz, and sorry to say, Arrested Development doesn't have it anymore. It got Globes attention when it mattered most, but now that the show is essentially over, the Globes has moved on to acknowledge a handful of deserving new arrivals, most notably Earl and Chris, which I refuse to patronize for merely being entertaining. (Both made my own Top 10 list in the Dec. 19 issue of TV Guide, on stands now.) I would agree that Curb and Housewives are undeserving, judged on their current seasons. But the Globes are also all about pandering, so I wasn't that surprised.
And from Paula: "Why wasn't 24 nominated for the GG? IMHO, Season 4 has been the best season yet. At least Kiefer got a nomination." Looks to me like Prison Break got the 24 slot. It's newer and the hype is fresher, which probably explains it, even though Prison Break is nowhere nearly as consistently gripping as 24. This one really is a boo-boo, ditto the complete exclusion of any FX dramas from the list.
And finally (for now) from Brooke: "Can you please tell me on what planet Commander in Chief is better than Veronica Mars, and Geena Davis is better than Kristen Bell? Commander in Chief is like The West Wing, as much as Still Standing is like Lost. It has horrible dialogue and horrible plots. With The West Wing (old-school West Wing, that is), you laughed with the characters. On Commander in Chief, you laugh at them. How can the Golden Globes finally give a UPN show a shot (Everybody Hates Chris) and not Veronica Mars? While I totally think Everybody Hates Chris deserves a nom, I wonder why the Globes really gave them a nom (especially without including VM). I mean, if you're going to go all out and nominate a UPN show, why not two? Why do you think they did one and not the other? Do you think it's because of the Chris Rock factor? Or they were afraid people would say they didn't because the cast is largely African-American?"
I doubt political correctness had as much to do with it as the fact that the drama category is much more crowded than the comedy roster. (Deadwood was shut out, for instance, which is truly inexplicable and unforgivable.) I love the Globes for going out on a limb with cult underdogs from time to time: The X-Files, Party of Five, last year Nip/Tuck, plus surprise acting wins by Jennifer Garner and Keri Russell in years past. All of which made me think Veronica Mars might stand a chance. But like Gilmore Girls and Buffy before it, I fear Veronica Mars is a show that will never make it onto the industry-awards radar. (Which again is why I'm so proud that the AFI jury stepped up and gave it some attention.)
