Award
shows lack substance
The Emmys came and went Sunday and I can’t
help but wonder if anyone cared because
I, for one, sure didn’t.
Actors, directors and producers already
make more money and get more notoriety than
people with real jobs, so why do they need
a night to publicize how important they
really are?
Let’s face the facts - acting is not a job.
It is not work and it’s not hard to do.
Some may be better than others, but if acting
was so hard, how does anyone explain Jim
Carrey movies?
If people in the movie industry want to
stroke themselves, fine, but don’t do it
on television. It’s bad enough people with
little to no talent are famous to begin
with; we don’t need to see their overpriced
jewelry and tacky wardrobe.
And those speeches they give? If there was
ever a time when a sniper is needed, it’s
during these comical moments. I’m not sure
which is worse, the planned speech thanking
everyone short of their pizza delivery guy
or the “I’m going to get up here and act
real suave and pretend like I don’t care
and just say ‘thanks’ while my heart’s really
pounding a mile a minute” speech.
The highlight of these shows is always the
“I’m overemotional because for once someone
recognizes my God-given ability and my importance
to this world” speech. I’ve got a news flash
for actors and actresses: You’re not special.
You know the person who wrote that funny
or dramatic line? Yeah, the one who you
mistakenly thought was the coffee guy? That’s
the creative one, the one with the talent.
You, you just read, and my 5-year-old cousin
can do that.
The Emmys are flawed for two main reasons.
First, how can someone compare one show
with another or one actor’s performance
with another? Isn’t this like comparing
apples and oranges? “Seinfeld” was a funny
show, and so is “King of the Hill,” but
how can someone rate them and say which
is better? The two shows go for a different
kind of humor and both succeed. Shouldn’t
they both win for that reason alone?
The second reason why the Emmys are flawed
— If “The Simpsons” doesn’t win every category,
there’s something wrong. As far as comedy
goes, this is really the only funny show
on TV (along with “King of the Hill”). On
a side note, I’d like to take this opportunity
to say “Friends” is not, has not and never
will be funny.
A third reason why the Emmys (and similar
shows) are flawed — not every show is nominated.
Who says only these five shows were the
best in their genre? Just because a program
on PBS doesn’t get the exposure one on CBS
gets doesn’t mean it’s not as good.
If I ran the world, I’d have my own award
show with real categories. “The latest I
came to class without getting a weird look
from everyone in the room” would open the
ceremony and “Best looking girl I saw at
the gym” would be the show closer.
For those of you who are wondering what
I think about other awards shows, I feel
the same way. No more Grammys, no more People’s
Choice, no more Tonys and please, for the
love of God, no more MTV awards.
Art is supposed to be something people do
because they love it, not to win a trophy.
Most of art’s true genius isn’t known to
the masses and there’s a reason for this:
People are dumb and they like dumb things.
The suits who run television, movies and
music know this and give the people what
they want, which is not necessarily the
best.
If I were ever nominated for an award, I
don’t think I’d go. But if I did attend,
it would only be for the free drinks backstage
and the chance to see Winona Ryder in person
and try to get her to marry me.
Ryan Ritchie is a senior journalism major
at Cal State Long Beach.
|
