If we
can just manage to get through today - and it's going to be difficult,
but I have faith in the indomitable spirit of the British male - then
tomorrow morning should be a happy one for the men of this country.
At the very least, it'll be a monumental relief.
Why? Because in case you hadn't noticed (and you're likely a woman,
so you most certainly have noticed), in the early hours of this morning
Hollywood celebrated the Oscars.
Which is more than just an annual film industry shindig; it's also
the closing event of what the Americans, and, increasingly, us too,
call "awards season", bringing the curtain down, at least
temporarily, on an interminable orgy of showbiz back-slapping and
glad-handing.
There's an old line that says warfare is long periods of boredom punctuated
by sudden moments of horror.
That's pretty much how I feel about the Oscars, and indeed all showbiz
awards ceremonies, from the Emmys and the Grammies to the Baftas and
the Brits (which at least have the dignity to be entertainingly shambolic).
|
And I'm not alone. I think most men feel this way.
It's not the ceremonies themselves, but the stars' arrivals that
'seem to fascinate so many women'
As far as we're concerned, the Oscars are among the smuggest, least
edifying spectacles on Earth.
Where else would a bunch of excessively remunerated thespians be
positively encouraged to get all squiffy and overemotional and deliver
heartfelt but brain-dead speeches about the environment, the war
in Iraq and the great job their agents are doing?
Oh, yes, the Golden Globes. How could I forget?
Until fairly recently, it was relatively easy to ignore "awards
season", largely because most of it happens on the other side
of the world, in the middle of the night, and no one sensible over
here ever paid it more than five minutes attention, and then only
if a Brit won something big.
But the now we're into the age of rolling entertainment news channels,
bitchy showbiz blogs and internet perma-coverage, red-carpet events
seem inescapable and the PR campaigns of toothy, bubble-headed actresses
are accorded the same weight and reverence, and often way more space,
than crucial geopolitical developments.
Thing is, as far as we can tell, you women take rather a different
approach to all this.
Chances are you'll be spending a good portion of this morning mooning
over photographs of botoxed Americans shamelessly disporting themselves
in inappropriate frocks for the benefit of ranks of photographers
in ill-fitting dinner jackets.
Women, for some reason, seem to regard awards ceremonies as a spectator
sport to rival more traditionally masculine pursuits, like football.
In fact, that's not quite right. It's not the ceremonies themselves,
which both sexes, when push comes to shove (as it doesn't nearly
often enough), can agree are insufferably boring.
It's the arrivals at the ceremonies that so many of you seem to
find so fascinating.
I find the slavering coverage of red-carpet events baffling, and
I think a lot of men agree with me.
There was a time, of course, when this might not have been the case,
when rarely glimpsed international glamourpusses and their studly
paramours (I'm thinking Ava Gardner and Frank Sinatra here, not
Brangelina) made gracious and fleeting appearances in their gorgeous
gowns and impeccably tailored suits.
Now, more often than not it's a load of goggle-eyed sitcom stars
wearing borrowed jewellery and being rated on their outfits by American
men with spray-tans, sculpted hair and body-modifications. Talk
about pot and kettle. This is what you think of as entertainment?
As for the nebulous fashion element, it's a non-starter. Where's
the glamour when even the most famous and beautiful are dressed
by professional stylists? How can someone be a style icon if they
didn't even pick out their own frock?
But that's not the thing I find most curious and distressing about
the fascination with red carpets.
The thing I find most curious and distressing is the fact that the
level of a person's interest in the tacky publicity shenanigans
that occur outside the venue often appears to work in directly inverse
proportion to their interest in the artform that is notionally being
celebrated.
Most of the people following the comings and goings on the red carpet
have probably seen one, at best, of the five movies nominated for
best film.
How could it be otherwise? If you're the sort of person who is genuinely
interested in whatever gaudy gown whoever skinny B-list actress
has borrowed from whichever fashion conglomerate in the hope of
promoting whichever international DVD release, then you're probably
not the sort of person who wants to sit through a two-and-a-half
hour epic about the oil industry in turn of the century California.
Or a harrowing French flick about a paralysed magazine editor, a
grisly contemporary Western about a drug deal gone wrong or a sombre
portrayal of the effects of Alzheimer's on an ageing Canadian woman,
all of which were the subjects of films nominated at yesterday's
awards.
In other words, you are watching a PR event just for the sheer hell
of watching a PR event. And sorry, but that's just plain weird.
|