/The Best and Worst of the Golden Globes

The Best and Worst of the Golden Globes


The Golden Globes on Sunday featured a quantity of upsets and rousing thank-yous in addition to flubbed intros and snoozy speeches. Here are the highlights and lowlights as we noticed them:

After the Golden Globes hosts Sandra Oh and Andy Samberg delivered a largely secure opening, going out of their approach to reward the work of Hollywood, Oh hit a surprisingly emotional word about illustration in the movie and tv trade and positive aspects in range onscreen and off. She was referring to a number of movies this awards season that characteristic individuals of coloration, and her internet hosting gig was itself a barrier breaker: she was the first Asian girl to entrance a serious American awards present. Oh informed the crowd that she had signed on as host as a result of “I wanted to be here to look out into this audience and witness this moment of change.” She acknowledged that the progress might be non permanent, saying, “I’m not fooling myself. Next year could be different.” But, she concluded, “right now, this moment is real.” As if to show her level, the Globes rewarded a notably various group of actors, administrators and tales. — Sopan Deb

[Read a transcript of Sandra Oh’s feedback.]

But Oh’s feedback adopted one of Samberg’s persevering with niceness roast segments. It’s a enjoyable sufficient concept, however it by no means fairly landed, and segueing from that ironic niceness to Oh’s real earnestness simply set all the things off on a complicated, slippery begin. The pacing by no means fairly recovered. Presenters flubbed their intros, and commercials got here at the mistaken spots. The sound combine made it seem to be the home was speaking over the present, and even Carol Burnett couldn’t proper the ship. — Margaret Lyons

[Read our review of the Globes telecast.]

Amy Poehler and Maya Rudolph brought a welcome silliness to the stage, first by joking around about supporting actors as a category and then with a faux proposal from a hyper-jittery Rudolph. It was short and goofy and most of all it looked like fun, in contrast to the largely joyless and desultory intros that preceded it. — Margaret Lyons

Television has always felt like an afterthought at the Golden Globes. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association didn’t start giving out prizes for TV until 19 years into the awards’ existence. So it seems apt that it took more than half a century to get around to inventing a lifetime achievement award for TV. And yet it also seems right that the award be named after its first winner, Carol Burnett, who took the stage and ruminated on her good fortune to have been able to make a weekly variety show with a lot of moving parts.

Burnett was poignant and touched. But she was also funny, bluish in fact. And her humor had a kind of vestigial power. She knew she represented a kind of rear-guard entertainment that is disappearing from television, despite there being more television than ever, and has vacated the movies. On “The Carol Burnett Show,” Burnett was a zillion different people and yet somehow always herself — this vivid, voluble weirdo technician. Two of the night’s big movie nominees — “Vice” and “Green Book” — were made by the writers and directors of “Dumb and Dumber,” “Shallow Hal,” “Anchorman” and “Talladega Nights.” They’d gotten serious of late — or at least less funny. Farce has given way to greeting card and jeremiad. Burnett, too, went dark for a spell — in movies. But seeing her accept her own achievement award was a reminder that it’s not just TV that’s an afterthought but maybe laughter, too. — Wesley Morris

[Read more of Carol Burnett’s speech.]



Source link Nytimes.com

TAGS:
Original Source