In accordance with my disinterest in celebrity award ceremonies, I did not watch the Golden Globes last night. I simply do not have a reason to focus my attention on the Grammys, the Oscars, or the VMAs: I am not a fashionista eager to see the priceless gowns draping the red carpet, I am not interested in watching live performances knowing well I could see a recording after a good night’s rest, and I especially tend to not be fond of the actor’s and actress’ speeches.
Meryl Streep went viral last night for her acceptance speech upon receiving the lifetime achievement award. I, myself, am a huge fan of Meryl Streep–I loved her in everything from The Devil Wears Prada to Into the Woods. Meryl is a woman of poise and many talents able to bring life to a stage whether she is playing a ruthless businesswoman or a hagged singing witch. So, even though I did not care to see her accept the aforementioned, laudable award, I do not believe she is any less deserving of it.
I woke up promptly at 2:00pm this afternoon (note my sarcasm), which was also when I first became aware of Meryl’s recent, famous speech. She spoke well and captured the attention of her entire audience…what else is new (note my appreciation)? I did, however, have a quarrel with the direction of her speech. Regardless of when she was speaking explicitly or in metaphor, it was obvious that the focus of her speech was on President-Elect Donald J. Trump.
Donald did not have my vote in 2016, but unlike Streep’s speech, I am appropriately not going to make this Op-Ed about him. The Golden Globes is not a political platform, and it should not be treated like one. While I like to discuss politics (and am in the process of attaining a B.A. in public policy), I hold Meryl and other celebrities opinions or political ideology to the same status as I hold everyone else’s.
Yes, she has the power to speak to a large audience, so yes, she has a lot of advocacy and influential power. However, is a ceremony such as the Golden Globes the place to express such power? Maybe if the Golden Globes (and other ceremonies alike) were comprised of speeches corresponding to their awards, I might watch them. In theory, these television specials could be shorter and cost less money, or, they could take more time discussing all of the aspects that make the ceremony fun to watch such as the gowns I mentioned and all of the praiseworthy films, actors/actresses, music, and more.
I am simply utilizing Streep’s speech while the iron is still hot as an example of what I do not constitute as an acceptance speech. I do not recall a “thank you” other than when she used the words and a bow as a conclusion to her speech. So, to conclude my own opinion on this subject, I will reiterate that I have no quarrel with Meryl Streep, however I do have one with her speech, which is much like others we listeners tuning in tend to hear.
Do I think that Meryl did not accomplish her objective in accepting her award? Yes. Is that because no change will likely sprout from her inspirational words? No! Meryl Streep did not accomplish her objective at the Golden Globe awards because she chose to talk about our president elect for five minutes rather than her cinematic achievements throughout her lifetime after being announced as the winner of the lifetime achievement award.