Most Boringest - Golden Globes 2007

Usually the Golden Globes do a pretty good job of picking up some of the Academy's slack and giving a little credit where it's due, but this year, the Academy's passion for People Playing Other People seems to have infected the Globes as well.

As I predicted, anyone connected to The Queen or Dreamgirls was exactly eleventeen more times as likely to take home an award.* There's a simple formula that explains this:

Let "Celebrated Figure Who Actually Existed or Still Exists" equal "X",
"Character Created from the Head of a Filmmaker" equal "?",
and "Actor in Question" equal "Jamie Foxx."

So you see, when Jamie Foxx = ? we have only a subjective viewpoint. We can only guess how a man in the unique predicaments of Detective Ricardo "Rico" Tubbs would behave. We can applaud what we imagine must be a fair representation of a troubled vice cop, but when Jamie Foxx = X, hold the presses! We can actually compare him to a REAL PERSON! He either looks and acts like X, or he doesn't, and if he does, then he wins!

There's a fine line between "acting" and "imitating," and if you ask me, films shouldn't be more celebrated just because the actors are doing a bang-on impression of a celebrity. Fiction is still cool, Hollywood Foreign Press, and it deserves some recognition. At this rate, we'll be giving Darrell Hammond Oscars in 2008 for "Best Dick Cheney."

Academy Award Nominations are announced Tuesday, Jan. 23, and we'll see where this is going then. Until then, I predict that everyone who's aping someone else will win, but their respective movies will not pick up Best Picture. That award will either go to a film that exposes stereotypes to the masses or stars Russell Crowe.

In the meantime, I'm waiting for the expose that confirms my suspicions that the Academy is entirely composed of my mom and her friends.







*Unless you're Beyonce, but it was a good try, honeybee.