How Is that Okay Grammys?

I don't think I can sum up my reaction to Chris Brown better than Gossip Columnist Lainey Liu did in a recent blog post.  She wants people to be angry with the academy, and I am.   How could they legitimize a guy who would beat a woman like that? Ask him to perform, and give him an award for his music too.

I get wanting to give someone a second chance. and in most cases I agree, just not this one.  Because what Brown did was unforgivable; he beat a woman.  That should be career suicide, it should mean he's a social pariah.  I remember Jay-Z saying at the time he would make life difficult for Brown; he would ruin his career.  What happened to that? And now he comes back to win a Grammy three years later? What's wrong with this picture?

How is that okay Grammy Academy?  Essentially that's what you're saying by giving him an award.  At one point he may have been a talented musician, maybe.  But his actions have spoken louder than words here; he is a violent, angry man and I just can't get past that- any normal human being shouldn't get past that.

You're setting a horrible for young women. How many women in similar situations to Brown's and Rhianna's won't speak up now, because virtually nothing has happened to him? You had a chance to make him pay a price here by refusing to let him perform, and refusing to give him any awards, and you didn't.  How is that okay Grammy Academy?

There's an old cliche that people often buy awards.  This proves it.  As Lainey says in her column; Be angry with the academy.  And I am.  So are others.  To share your anger sign this petition... because the Grammy academy awarding Chris Brown, is not okay.

Disappointed by Ricky Gervais

I started watching the Globes Pre-show on E.  I found it really superficial, and focused too much on the gowns, and celebrity.  One anchor commented on the fact Brad Pitt opened the car door for Angelina; I just rolled my eyes and said: "Well what do you expect? They are practically husband and wife" .   And honestly it made me long for E-Talk's live coverage and Ben Mulroney.  When Mulroney interviews someone- he manages to do both successfully.  At times Ryan Seacrest was by the celebrity glitz and glamour of it.


One thing that stood out for me about last night's Golden Globes: Ricky Gervais.  He was funny; I found myself  laughing out loud at his jokes.  But he wasn't as funny as he was last year.  Yes, I get that maybe he went a little too far at times, but he seemed pretty much muzzled this year.   The unpredictability of his jokes was gone. 

It was disappointing- I don't know exactly why. It may have had something to do with the fact we'd seen it before the previous year, or this constant fear of offending someone with what could be considered in some circles as the truth.  And that's what Gervais was good at; blunt jokes that after you finished laughing had some tiny kernel of truth in them.  That's what I missed in his performance last night.  And there didn't seem to be enough of him- of course I did turn it away to watch Downton Abbey for an hour at 9.

As for the awards themselves; It was nice to see Christopher Plummer win Best supporting Actor for Beginners.  I thought it was a little unfair of Meryl Streep won for the Iron Lady; a movie  that has only just been released, and has generated more than a little controversy over whether it should've been made in the first place.  I've never heard of the show Kelsey Grammer won for, and am not  really a fan.  The movie "The Artist" won, and that was a bit of fresh air; as always it was nice to see the underdog win.
Elton John did look pissed.  I would be too if I lost to Madonna- W.E. wasn't in wide release, and from what I  hear of it; it was a pretty bad  movie.  

As far as awards shows go; it was okay.  It had its surprises; its moments; it actually ended early which I'm sure a lot of people appreciated.  I'm sure the Oscars will improve on it.