Any thoughts on Gervais' speech? I really enjoyed his comment about not using their acceptance speech for political purpose. They're actors, they live in their ivory towers and talk condescendingly to us (the public) as if we had no clue. They should go help out in a soup kitchen if they want to learn a thing or two.
I posted also about our Great Atheist humourist Ricky .....Prince Andrew and diCaprio deserved all the pedophiles and Epstein jokes
If the start up income for these actors was anything like the start up income and even established income of Canadian actors, they know about soup kitchens and living on the edge. Yes, they may have forgotten or repressed most of it, but his remarks were, in some senses, ironic and he knew his audience well.
The right message from the right atheist. But, really, does anyone really watch those silly award shows anymore? Hollywood and the entertainment industry generally are the very epitome of hypocrisy and illusion, incestuously connected to government agencies, the military and corporate oligarchs, essentially the propaganda arms of the US Ruling Class. I'm totally over all that crap, the phoney stars and their false progressivism. A few rich asshole stars at the top doing "good deeds", a swag of people below in the industry getting by, and a bunch of corporate oligarchs like robber barrons running the set up. In other words, Capitalism, wrapped up with phoney glamour.
I strongly disagree. Actors are people with a podium that are within their rights to express not only their political beliefs but their opinions. As for their elevation within the economy, I am more worried about congress critters getting out and working in a soup kitchen, learning what it's like in the real world, than actors. And the way you can tell that actors are more successful at getting that message across is because the politicians criticize them for doing so.
Conversationally, most actors are more benevolent benefactors than Congressmen as well.
Look at Richard Gere, Kaepernick, Di Caprio, Bon Jovi, etcetera, and the foundations they've set up and non-profits they support. It is a reality on any level, if you don't have time to give, then give what you can. What they can give is their support monetarily and use their podium for those causes.
@linxminx I've heard of these Donor advised Funds. The hypocrisy is astounding. And frankly it's immoral.
@MsDemeanour Doris Day and a few others are an EXCEPTION to this rule....Day put her money into Animal Rights and Xian Science religion after she was swindled early in her career....Jane Fonda has come out FRIDAYS to stop global pollution....but donating to demorats like Barbra Streisand IS THE PROBLEM just like Tom Selleck and Clint Eastwood donating to rethugs....the problem is incumbents and we need to MAKE EARTH GREEN AGAIN
Okay Ricky has just gone up about 300% in my estimation, like Terry Gilliam the other day, people need to see British humour for what it is sarcastic, piss taking bombastic bubble bursting of the over entitled and self righteous prigs
And some of them do excellent charitable work in the real world....why would you assume they "all" do not?
Just as ugly as assuming brown people are lazy, or asians are workaholics, or any other stereotype!
I dislike that rich or famous people are so public about their good works. Especially as it is often tax deductible. I can't help being a cynic
@MsDemeanour some say nothing.....
@AnneWimsey meaning some DO nothing? Yes that's a good point.
@MsDemeanour no, they do great things but keep quiet about it, just like some of us.
Another "take": If you have a message, and a pulpit to deliver it from, perhaps you have a Duty to do so?!
I don't mind celebrities using their celebrity to send a message. There are many people in the world who are unaware of issues but pay attention to celebrities. Also celebrities enjoy the freedom of speech as much as anyone else. It's their choice. And I'm glad they have the courage to voice their concerns year after year knowing they will be ridiculed.
Frankly, I don't get why Gervais gets so bothered. It almost seems contrived to get the award show a boost in ratings, but I'm trying not to be that cynical.
Mini-Rodney Dangerfield wannabe in this bit........
I love gervais. He is smart and perceptive. I had not heard his speech so i listened to your posted video. I did not hear him make the points you made so i can only respond to your description of them, and based on that i disagree. First of all, in the bit i heard, he was not himself apolitical. Second of all, if everyone there lives in an ivory tower, then does he include himself? Does he work in a soup kitchen? Does he know for sure none of them works in one? If he can use his celebrity to promote ideas -- and i am glad he does -- why can't they?
g
Gervais often takes the piss out of his own success. He acknowledges he has moved well away from his working class roots. So yes he acknowledges the separation. But the Brits treat their celebrities a little less like gods than they do in america. I think this must help a little to keep them grounded.
The golden globes (not really sure what they are actually) and the oscars should be a place where actors and directors etc accept their honours for their skills, with humility and gratefulness. If they want to discuss their political views; they can do it with a journalist for a magazine or tweet it.
sorry I had the wrong vid. If you go to the tail end of this one you will get what I'm talking about.
@MsDemeanour I am not sure i would be able to resist an audience that size if i had a message.
g
@genessa . Then what are the golden globes about? I must google 'golden globes'. I know I've had a couple of drinks but I can't help thinking of spray painted breasts. hmmmm
@MsDemeanour They are an entertainment awards show, with a different presenting (and judging) entity from the ones behind the oscars and the emmies, and xombining some venues. I don't watch them, myself.
g