Frankly, I didn't watch The Golden Globe Awards. Why? Because I have tried to watch them in the past and was bored to the point that dental records would not identify my smoldering remains. The fact is, awards shows are, almost without exception, dreadful; they are too long, the actors who present the awards make terrible comedians as they read their cheesy little lines, and hearing the winners thank their managers, agents and assorted brown nosers is about as much fun as starring in an Al Qaeda beheading video. Then, I heard about how hilarious Ricky Gervais was, and I've been watching bits and pieces on the Internet ever since. Like Gervais or not, you have to admit, more people are talking about the show than ever before. And Gervais was brilliantly funny, like when he introduced Bruce Willis as "Ashton Kutcher's Dad," and when he said of a recent film, "In it two heterosexual actors pretended to be gay, which is the exact opposite of what some actors who are Scientologists do." Funny, true, and he didn't even name names, like Tom Cruise or John Travolta. Nor did he make a single Richard Gere Gerbil reference. One has to ponder, have the people who were offended by Gervais ever seen an episode of The Family Guy, or The Simpsons? Have they ever seen a monologue by Leno or Letterman or Ferguson or Conan? But then, this is the biggest bunch of spoiled brats on the planet. Don't forget, Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are no longer speaking to Anne Hathaway because she portrayed Katie Holmes unflatteringly in an SNL sketch (an SNL sketch for crying out loud!).
The President of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, Philip Berk, said that Gervais went too far. Great, then don't hire Ricky Gervais, dumbass! Gervais is known as an irreverent, no holds barred comic. Which is exactly why he was hired in the first place. Hiring Ricky Gervais, then complaining that he went too far is like the Rotary Club hiring Kathy Griffin to emcee a roast. Truth be told, Gervais was the most interesting host the show has had in years, and it got the best ratings its had in years. But God forbid anyone bruise the fragile egos of a bunch of spoiled whiny, overindulged movie stars.
So go ahead Golden Globes, next year hire someone safe, like Pat Sajak for example, or better yet Ryan Seacrest; he'll damn sure keep the gay references down to a dull roar.
In truth, Gervais navigated this thing perfectly. He hosted the Globes last year and did a great job. So great that he was invited back this year. Last year he probably held back a bit, and thought to himself that this year he'd kick it up a notch. After all, the Mel Gibson tapes weren't even out yet. So boom, he came, he saw, he conquered and now he gets to leave on his terms. And next year The Golden Globes can go back to its usual mind numbing, fawning tedium, and Ricky Gervais can contine to be a comedian and movie star.
Or, the Golden Globes can hire Lisa Lampanelli to host next year and we can all watch everyone's heads explode.
Peter Guber: The Intimacy Of The Cell Phone
For people belonging to an organization known for intimidation and harassment of critics, they're a bunch of cry babies.
If this is what Scientology turns you into, Do Not Want!
The Golden Globes attendees were drinking during the show. They were more relaxed than usual in public and their guards were down. The hopeful award winners were shocked because they didn't expect edgy humor.
It wasn't the content that was a surprise. It was the context for the humor that was controversial.
I'm a fan of Johnny Depp but if he was in a movie that sucked I could admit it, and I would expect Depp to admit it also, or maybe lose a fan.
He was funny , everything else is detail.
I have sought to encourage "Détente" between adherents of Scientology and critics of Scientology, just because people don't have to be unencumbered by the familiar factions people have become accustomed to.
If people prefer to emphasize differences, and deepen divisions, I understand why. As society becomes more compartmentalized, people enjoy the social effects.
However, it's worth remembering that prior to this thawing between the factions of this "Cold War" of Hollywood, people were getting to be somewhat vindictive and nasty.
I choose not to be a nagging critic of Scientology. I grew weary of being a critic of various systems of organized belief, and decided that people are more important than differences between people (within reason).
I'm sticking with this choice because it makes sense for me. In the future, I will explore more deeply all open doors of faith. There is no trickery involved in keeping this formless state of mind.
Faith and belief are separate and distinct. The absence of beliefs needn't be confused with believing something is not so. I have many more questions than answers. By asking, I seek to reveal other's wisdom, not to trap them in a corner.
I had a little trouble understanding some of your phrases, but I took away from your message, basically, that we shouldn't be critical of scientology. You state that "In the future, I will explore more deeply all open doors of faith." Well let me save you some time... many of us have spent a lifetime investigating different faiths. One thing that persists, however, is the invidious nature of scientology.
People should be responsible for their personal finances regardless of offerings of indulgences or status within a group for donations.
Generally, leaders should not accept offerings from those who will become dependent, or a liability as a result of making donations they cannot afford.