Golden Globe Awards...unveiled with little pomp or circumstance!

One of the jewels in Tinseltown's crown was packed away until further notice, as the Writers Guild of America continued with its contentious strike action against Hollywood Producers.

The Golden Globes, one of the most glamorous award shows in the calendar year, was cancelled in favor of a low-key press conference, which came and went without fanfare.

The broadcast, which aired on NBC, lasted about sixty minutes - and stuffed in it - were the names of the winners...a task which normally takes about 3 1/2 hours to unveil to start-struck viewers at home.

There were no mad dashes to the podium, awkward moments on stage, or impromptu political speeches about Zionist hoodlums; indeed - not one actor excitedly gushed, as they peed their pants - "You like me. You really like me."

Instead of endless footage of red carpet (ho hum), fleets of luxurious stretch limos purring at the curb, and voluminous shots of stars scanning the landscape - picking their noses - and jockeying for best face-time on-camera...the nominees were read out in rapid-fire procession with the award-winners announced before the dust had the opportunity to settle.

Ah, but didn't we miss the suspense - the adrenalin rush - of it all?

But, the format did have its plusses.

Producers were able to offer up clips of the nominees, toss in some background color - and ultimately - tantalize us with teasers just before commercial break...without those pesky, scene-stealing celebrities, getting in harm's way.

Of course, we were forced to put up with bothersome Television Hosts - like Billy Bush of "Access Hollywood" - who was having a bad hair day. And, struggle through fluffy commentary by self-described "insider experts" in the show biz arena. Most of the time, their predictions were off the mark, go figure!

NBC cleverly used the occasion to herd viewers to their web site, NBC.COM. Fans, and armchair critics alike, were offered the opportunity to vote on their favs before the vote-counts were broadcast later in the program.

The idea was a novel, fun one; obviously meant to sooth and entertain an audience that must have been a bit testy about the awards-show cancellation, and subsequent, non-glitzy turn-of-events.

You know what they say; necessity is the motherhood of invention.

When it came to the prize-getters, there were a number of upsets, and welcome surprises.

I, for one, was rooting for Marion Cotillard, who starred in the feature film "La Vie En Rose". Her best actress win in the Musical film category is a good sign for the upcoming Oscar run. For those unfamiliar with the film, or Ms. Cotillard's performance, check out my review. (Post, La Vie En Rose, 9/5/07)

Johnny Depp broke a curse that has been swirling around him for the past decade; after losing a bid six times, "Sweeney Todd" proved to be a lucky charm which nabbed him the pretty little Golden Statuette.

Many were overwhelmed by Tina Fey's win. The writer and creator of 30 Rock was not expecting a nomination (or a Golden Globe) in the category of Best Actress in a comedy, but that's the way it turned out for the talented young woman.

Some speculated that David Duchovney's win for "Californication" was a carry-over from the "X-Files" days, when the Foreign Correspondents previously gave an approving nod.

Julie Christie - who gave a remarkable performance in a drama shot in Canada (Away From Her) - won, after a drought of thirty years. The last time she was nominated was for "Shampoo", when she was being squired around by the film's star, Warren Beatty.

Julian Schnabel - an illustrious artist of note - won for Best Director for "The Diving Bell & the Butterfly"...his first time out at directing.

Though some thought "No country for Old Men" (quite overrated, and a flawed film, in my estimation) might rustle up an award, "Attonement" ended up scooping the prize to the surprise of many.

Cate Blanchett - who played the role of "Bob Dylan" in the intriguing biographical film - "I'm not There" - received the award for Best Actress.

Once again, the Foreign Correspondents confirmed, they have little prejudice against those who cross gender lines.

In fact, judging by the outcome of the Golden Globes this year, it is quite evident that the Foreign Correspondents no longer go for the favorites, but on occasion, champion the long shot.

Not surprising, since the honor should be based on talent, not popularity.

Film critics...squabble over "Art"; put down bloggers!

Today there is an amusing article in the Los Angeles Times Calendar section about a feud erupting among self-proclaimed film critics.

According to Patrick Goldstein, "Hollywood has never been so full of nasty denunciations, agonized hand-wringing and self-monitoring rhetoric."

Apparently, a movie reviewer (!) at the LA WEEKLY has been bitchin' and complainin' about a handful of fellow reviewers, and at one point accused some of being, "...white noise taking up valuable column inches that could be devoted to legitimate (!) Film criticism."

For starters, I rarely read the weekly because I generally find the articles strive for lofty heights that the writers are creatively and intellectually incapable of achieving. The cheap sex ads - which pay for the writers' salaries - are too cheesy for my taste, as well.

Generally, I flip through to the "Rocky Horoscope", and peruse Savage's sex column - at which point - I use the overly-thick throw-away for something practical. In case you were unware of it, the LA WEEKLY makes a great liner for the kitty litter box.

A couple of critics have been accused of casting aspersions on "bloggers", who - some claim - are out of their league, for want of a better term. Just because an individual blogs does not mean he or she is lacking in formal training or professional credits, you know?

For example, I majored in English Literature and Art.

My own background education included a focus on the "art" of critiquing, with foundation courses in the "History of Cinema", and actual hands-on experience in the technique of filmmaking.

I was also a journalist with a major daily newspaper. In addition, a handful of literary works have been published by reputable printing houses. For a couple of years, I poured over dozens of scripts in my capacity as a Literary Agent, representing script writers in the area of Film and Television, as well.

For a short duration, I produced low-budget features for cable.

Why do I love my blog?

For starters, the fact no editor is breathing down my neck, appeals to me. Also, I savor the privilege of penning my articles, without censorship. Of course, it's also a creative joy to conjure up catchy captions for my posts and personally select eye-catching, thought-provoking images, to enhance my articles.

In contrast, many filmmakers have no training or background in the arts. In some instances, a rambunctious logger literally snatched up a video camera, shot reams of raw footage without much reflection, edited and shaped the ball of wax on the fly, then - flogged the humble offering at local film festivals...with an eye for distribution, a production deal, instant fame and fortune - you name it!

As to critics - well, it's a given.

Each has a varied educational background, unique vantage point, opinion about the cinema - a specialized taste, whatever. Consequently, reviews reflect a myriad of insights, musings, and harsh criticisms.

One critic referred to in the LA TIMES article, allegedly slammed the establishment, film foundations, and - in particular - awards outfits...went so far as to lament the "Hollywood Foreign Press Association" was, "...one of the most corrupt, pathetic, kow-towing groups of award voters imaginable."

True, their selections often boggle my own sensibilities. In view of that, on occasion, I've pondered what sinister outside influences - payola perhaps? - may be afoot, lurking in the shadows.

I understand the frustration. After all, in my humble opinion the feature film - "Eastern Promises" - was the worst movie of the year...a piece of celebrated junk. Yet, it garnered a couple of "Golden Globe" nominations.

Years ago, one of my professors gave me a great piece of advice, I'm still inclined to adhere to. She articulated quite succinctly that, "When you view a work of art - be it a painting or film - you should stand back for a moment and figure out what "washed over" you."

"Were you seduced or manipulated?" she asked pointedly.

In my critiques, I strive to be constructive...and, when I literally loathe a movie, often turn to filmgoers in the theatre for an outside opinion to be fair. Usually, I am astounded by the fact that so few filmgoers noticed the obvious flaws and shortcomings of the filmmakers.

In sum, it appears that most moviegoers are "open" to the film experience, without any inclination to critique from the offset...yeah, they appear to be content to settle for a couple of hours of solid, tangible entertainment.

What's wrong with that?

The "Joe" public may not know what celluloid art is, but they know what they like.

For this reason, you can't ever second guess 'em...in spite of a rave review or vitriolic jab.

A last word to the critics?

Elbert Hubbard probably said it best,

"To escape criticism - do nothing, say nothing, be nothing..."