..Gary Dretzka
..Noah Forrest
..Leonard Klady
..R.J. Matson
..David Poland
..Douglas Pratt
..Ray Pride
..Michael Wilmington

December 15, 2003

 

TRIO EXPOSE:
TOM O'NEIL'S DIRTY LITTLE NOT-SO-SECRET

The Let's-Bash-The-Documentary-Because-I-Need-To Keep-The-Monkeys-Happy Press Release Reveals a REAL Shockeroo: Tom O'Neil Is Much More Interested In Success Than In Artistic Integrity.

By David Poland (C.V. And Things Of Mine You Can Buy Available Upon Request)

Pretending that the Golden Globes is a legitimately important award is a favorite sport in Hollywood - particularly among American media whores who can't resist using any opportunity to position themselves as experts about a ragtag group of foreign journalists who have gotten away with something amazing: TV's greatest scam awards show, which really generates tens of millions of extra dollars for NBC, the trades, publicists, awards "experts," caterers, champagne salesmen, paparazzi, Joan Rivers and best of all, they can pretend that this group of 96 has massive influence over the 6500 member Academy by expanding their categories so wide that they are pretty sure to get every front-running fish in the nominations net.

Over the past 60 years, The Globes have guessed at what Oscar voters would like 44 times, helping themselves to two shots at the guess each year. That's a stunning 37% accuracy rate! And Tom O'Neill knows for a fact that without the help of the HFPA Awards Elves, films from An American in Paris to Shakespeare in Love would have fallen on their faces in the Oscar race. The campaigns and the films had NOTHING to do with it, clearly… after all, Tom knows.

If you think that the Globes aren't equal to the Oscars, you are a "media bully" and a "ruling Yankees of showbiz." (If only we'd been able to hit worth a damn in the Series!) Tom accuses Trio of "joining the mob" by broadcasting "The Golden Globes: Hollywood's Dirty Little Secret," which he says was "as journalistically irresponsible as Trio accused the Globes of being."

Tom is obviously distracted by shiny objects. He refers to the film that aired on Trio as though it made itself. Is he lacking the insight or the interest in research when he fails to name director Vikram Jayanti as the director of the film? Jayanti produced the well respected docs When We Were Kings and The Man Who Bought Mustique and in the last few years, he has directed the award-winning James Ellroy's Feast of Death and Game Over: Kasparov & The Machine. This guy is no jolly joker. He is not making some E! special (Full Disclosure: Tom O'Neill works for E! every year as an awards expert.) that is looking for juicy gossip.

O'Neill goes after John Powers, a member of LAFCA, by mocking LAFCA for failing to produce a successful TV show out of their awards. Get it? Producing a successful TV show is the prerequisite for being a quality critics group. Of course! O'Neill goes after Sharon Waxman by accusing her of "mount(ing) a scorch-and-burn campaign against the Globes for years in the pages of the Washington Post," as though journalistic tenacity was something to be disdained.

Interestingly, the talking heads that Tom O'Neil chooses not to go after are the ones that he might have to deal with again at some point: Variety's Bill Higgins, Oscar-winning documentarian Chuck Workman and Oscar-winner Michael Phillips, who might be the toughest critic of the awards in the piece.

The comic relief of the film is Danish journalist Jeannie Mortensen, who seems to be living the HFPA lifestyle while not even being a member. She's waiting for the one Danish member to die, so she might be able to join. Because the qualification for membership is… oy! Anyway, Tom asks the all-important question, "If other journalists accept those perks - including fake-smile photos with celebs - what's wrong with HFPA members getting them?"

Look ma, no irony!

O'Neill positions the HFPA leaderships refusal to be interviewed (not mentioning that they ordered members not to be interviewed either) as a defensive posture. After all, "officials knew what was coming -- that's how automatic Globe-bashing is."

Ah, the logic of the righteous!

Then O'Neill starts using the "but they are just as bad" run of excuses. You know, The Academy doesn't demand that their members be currently active in the business either. (Of course, The Academy does not claim to be a journalistic venture. I know… journalistic ethics… who needs 'em?) He goes after LAFCA by citing "The L.A. Times's Jack Mathews," who hasn't been at The LA Times for four or five years. He does point out one fact that is worth comment: "Only two years ago did the LAFCA finally adopt the same minimum standard maintained by the HFPA -- those four article clippings per year." It has nothing to do with whether the HFPA is legit, but it's worth discussion in another context.

More comparative studies - from 1941 - continue. But you know how far down O'Neill will go to defend his HFPA pals when he actually tries to sell Pia Zadora as a legit winner. Did you know that "Playboy called her 'Zadorable.' " It's true! They also published pictures of her vagina! It's true!

Tom selectively attacks the campaigning for Oscar in the early days… and never really draws blood. He can't. It would be bad for business. Studios voted in blocks, intimidation was used, favors were done… everyone knows this… but Tom refers back to 1929. Yes, it's safe, Tom. Mark Pickford is dead. Pia Zadora bought her house.

Tommy closes, "That's what members of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association have done with the Golden Globes, a roster of winners so impressive the Oscar voters swipe them freely. But, in response, alas, most American media can only respond with swipes."

Please. Where's your defense of National Board of Review? The Golden Globes has cleaned up its act since Pia Zadora. Perhaps if they were honest and admitted that it was once a mess when the documentarian called (never ambushing members, which he could have), things would not seem so harsh. But that's not the way of the Globes. They act like they have something to hide. They hide behind that gate that Vikram couldn't get past. They handle the media through a website, unlike the Oscars, who put John Pavlik and Leslie Unger front and center.

They have made Shinola out of shit. And that is to be admired. And I like and respect many of the groups members. But honesty and forthrightness about the group is not one of their strengths. They have too much to lose. And so do their defenders.

*************

NOTE: These views are those of sane people ONLY and do NOT necessarily reflect other journalists who are in denial.