Here’s a look at the big winners and losers of the evening.

Oscar Contenders

Winners: “The Artist” and The Descendants”
Both films are likely to be major Oscar contenders, and both left the Globes with renewed momentum. “The Artist” collected awards for best comedy or musical, best actor (Jean Dujardin) and best score. Meanwhile, “The Descendants” collected two awards: best actor in a drama (George Clooney) and best drama. Their wins likely foreshadow their future success at the Academy Awards and could lead to more moviegoers checking out these two smaller films.

Losers: “Moneyball” and “The Ides of March”
Despite the fact that it was nominated for four awards, “Moneyball” walked home with zero awards. Even Aaron Sorkin (“The Social Network”), Steve Zaillian (“Schindler’s List”) and Stan Chervin didn’t win for their brilliant screenplay. Woody Allen took home the award for best screenplay for his wonderful comedy, “Midnight in Paris.” “Ides of March,” the political thriller directed and co-written by George Clooney, also went 0-4 during the evening but Clooney didn’t leave the show empty-handed (see winners).

Acceptance Speeches:

Winner: Michelle Williams (“My Week with Marilyn”)
Michelle Williams took home the award for best actress in a comedy or musical for her wonderful performance in “My Week with Marilyn.” Williams, who deserves an Oscar for her portrayal of Marilyn Monroe, gave an excellent and heartfelt acceptance speech. She thanked her family and noted that she considers herself “a mother first and an actress second.” She also showed her distinct humility by talking about how thankful she was that the Hollywood foreign press put in “my hands the same award that Marilyn Monroe won” more than 50 years earlier.

Loser: Meryl Streep (“The Iron Lady”)
Yes, Streep walked out with the award for best actress in a drama for her portrayal of Margaret Thatcher in “The Iron Lady,” but her speech was a mess. For some of it, her words were bleeped out and the other parts weren’t much better as she attempted to name all of the other nominees in her category. Plus, conservatives were outraged on Twitter afterwards because Streep didn’t thank the Iron Lady herself, Margaret Thatcher. Streep did, however, thank the people of England who “let me tramp all over their history,” an odd note to strike when talking about portraying their nation’s former prime minister.

Award Show Humor

Winner: Ricky Gervais
One of the most controversial aspects of the Golden Globes was its host. Many predicted he would make a lot of jokes at the expense of the Hollywood stars and starlets in the audience. With celebrities prepared for it this time, the room seemed more comfortable with Gervais’ act and he made a few great pointed jokes about the Globes and the network they aired on. He followed that up by making another joke about Johnny Depp’s film, “The Tourist.” He asked Depp himself if the actor had seen the film, one of the funniest moments of the evening. Depp admitted that he hadn’t.

Loser: Seth Rogen
Rogen, whose film “50/50” garnered two nominations, was one of the presenters at the Golden Globes. Having earned more credibility as a serious actor for his performance in that film, he could have used this opportunity to present himself as a mature actor willing to walk away from his sophomoric past. Instead, he used his turn at the mic to make a lackluster joke about being sexually aroused standing next to Kate Beckinsale.

A few other winners and losers made the night worth watching. The new Showtime series “Homeland” was a huge winner, taking home awards for best drama and best actress in a drama (Claire Danes). Also, Christopher Plummer and Octavia Spencer were big winners as well, taking home the awards for best supporting actor and actress for their work in “Beginners” and “The Help.” In a surprise win, Oscar winner Martin Scorsese  took home the award for best director for “Hugo.” Conservative actor Kelsey Grammer also emerged as a big winner, taking home the award for best actor in a drama for his work on the Starz  drama “Boss.”

However, the ceremony’s highlight for me might have been Morgan Freeman taking home the Cecil B. Demille Award. Speaking eloquently about his career and graciously about presenters Helen Mirren and Sidney Poitier, Freeman was a class act.

It’s not often that an actor is so impressive when he doesn’t have a script, but Freeman seemed genuine and gracious in accepting the award. Watching him speak was the best part of a satisfying but sometimes underwhelming– I still wish Albert Brooks had won for “Drive”– Golden Globes ceremony.

The 69th Annual Golden Globes starts at 8 p.m. EST tonight and will be hosted again by British comedian Ricky Gervais. I can’t wait to see who he offends this time.

Let’s take a look at who’s nominated this year for Hollywood Foreign Press Association’s Golden Globes. Favorites of the HFPA this year are “The Artist” and George Clooney. I’ve gone through the nominations and picked who I would like to see win and who will most likely win.

FILM

Best Motion Picture – Drama

The Descendants
The Help
Hugo
The Ides of March
Moneyball
War Horse

“The Help” was one of the most incredibly moving films of the year and featured a stellar, talented cast. It was also one of the best book adaptations I have ever seen. But I think the HFPA is in favor of Clooney this year. My Pick: The Help Who Will Win: The Descendants

Best Motion Picture – Comedy or Musical

50/50
The Artist
Bridesmaids
Midnight in Paris
My Week with Marilyn

I really did enjoy all of these films. But if I had to pick the BEST one, there is no comparison. My Pick: The Artist Who Will Win: The Artist

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture – Drama

George Clooney, The Descendants
Brad Pitt, Moneyball
Ryan Gosling, The Ides of March
Michael Fassbender, Shame
Leonardo DiCaprio, J. Edgar

Clooney had his fair share of ups and downs and played a character who he’s never played before: someone who’s been cheated on. My Pick: George Clooney Who Will Win: George Clooney

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture – Drama

Glenn Close, Albert Nobbs
Viola Davis, The Help
Rooney Mara, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady
Tilda Swinton, We Need to Talk About Kevin

It’s so hard to pick between Davis and Mara. Davis is an all-star who does deserve the recognition, but Mara had the wow factor in “Dragon Tattoo.” My Pick: Split vote between Viola Davis and Rooney Mara Who Will Win: Viola Davis

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture – Comedy or Musical

Jean Dujardin, The Artist
Brendan Gleeson, The Guard
Joseph Gordon-Levitt, 50/50
Ryan Gosling, Crazy, Stupid, Love.
Owen Wilson, Midnight in Paris

JGL produced the BEST performance of his career and I loved him in “50/50,” but French actor Jean Dujardin won at Cannes and won me over in “The Artist.” My Pick: Jean Dujardin Who Will Win: Jean Dujardin

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture – Comedy or Musical

Jodie Foster, Carnage
Charlize Theron, Young Adult
Kristen Wiig, Bridesmaids
Michelle Williams, My Week With Marilyn
Kate Winslet, Carnage

Although I loved Williams’ performance in “Marilyn,” I’m not sure why the film fits in the Comedy or Musical category, as it is a vulnerable portrait of Monroe’s life at the height of her career. Wiig proved herself as an actress in “Bridesmaids,” and it was one of my favorite films of the year. My Pick: Kristen Wiig Who Will Win: Michelle Williams

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture

Kenneth Branagh, My Week With Marilyn
Albert Brooks, Drive
Jonah Hill, Moneyball
Christopher Plummer, Beginners
Viggo Mortensen, A Dangerous Method

Someone needs to win for “Drive,” and Brooks played one mean, nasty villain. But the HFPA will probably give it to Plummer because he’s been around for, well, a while. My Pick: Albert Brooks Who Will Win: Christopher Plummer

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture

Shailene Woodley, The Descendants
Octavia Spencer, The Help
Janet McTeer, Albert Nobbs
Berenice Bejo, The Artist
Jessica Chastain, The Help

Tough. So many great performances in the supporting category this past year. I’m split between all of them really. “The Artist” could potentially do a Golden Globes sweep, and the Globe may go to talented newcomer Berenice Bejo. However, I remember being super taken with Spencer’s performance as Minnie in “The Help.” My Pick: Octavia Spencer Who Will Win: Octavia Spencer

Best Director

Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris
George Clooney, The Ides of March
Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist
Alexander Payne, The Descendants
Martin Scorsese, Hugo

“The Ides of March” was beautifully shot, and the way it was shot made the film all the more suspenseful. I was impressed with Clooney, but Hazanavicius also created a timeless masterpiece by shooting in B&W with some amazing camera work. My Pick: George Clooney Who Will Win: Michel Hazanavicius

Best Screenplay

Midnight in Paris
The Ides of March
The Artist
The Descendants
Moneyball

My Pick: The Descendants Who Will Win: The Descendants

Best Animated Feature Film

The Adventures of Tintin
Arthur Christmas
Cars 2
Puss in Boots
Rango

My Pick: The Adventures of Tintin Who Will Win: The Adventures of TinTin

Best Foreign Language Film

Flowers of War
In the Land of Blood and Honey
The Kid With a Bike
A Separation
The Skin I Live In

My Pick: In the Land of Blood and Honey Who Will Win: In the Land of Blood and Honey

Best Original Score – Motion Picture

W.E.
The Artist
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
War Horse
Hugo

My Pick: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Who Will Win: The Artist

Best Original Song – Motion Picture

Gnomeo & Juliet: Hello Hello
Machine Gun Preacher: The Keeper
W.E.: Masterpiece
Albert Nobbs : Lay Your Head Down
The Help: The Living Proof

My Pick: The Help Who Will Win: The Help

TV

Best TV Drama

American Horror Story
Boardwalk Empire
Boss
Game of Thrones
Homeland

I was obsessed with “American Horror Story” this season. Ryan Murphy successfully molded drama and horror into a weekly show. My Pick: American Horror Story What Will Win: Boardwalk Empire

Best TV Comedy or Musical

Enlightened
Episodes
Glee
Modern Family
New Girl

I only like “New Girl,” “Glee” hasn’t been hot for a while, and I continue to hear great things about “Modern Family” so … My Pick: Modern Family What Will Win: Modern Family

Best Miniseries or Motion Picture

Cinema Verite
Downton Abbey
The Hour
Mildred Pierce
Too Big to Fail

My Pick: Mildred Pierce What Will Win: Downtown Abbey

Best Actor in a TV Drama

Bryan Cranston, Breaking Bad
Steve Buscemi, Boardwalk Empire
Damian Lewis, Homeland
Jeremy Irons, The Borgias
Kelsey Grammer, Boss

My Pick: Steve Buscemi Who Will Win: Steve Buscemi

Best Actor in a TV Musical or Comedy

Alec Baldwin, 30 Rock
David Duchovny, Californication
Johnny Galecki, The Big Bang Theory
Thomas Jane, Hung
Matt LeBlanc, Episodes

My Pick: Alec Baldwin Who Will Win: Alec Baldwin

Best Actor in a Miniseries or Made-for-TV Movie

Hugh Bonneville, Downton Abbey
Idris Elba, Luther
William Hurt, Too Big to Fail
Bill Nighy, Page Eight
Dominic West, The Hour

My Pick: Hugh Bonneville Who Will Win: Hugh Bonneville

Best Supporting Actor in TV Series, Miniseries, or Made-for-TV Movie

Peter Dinklage, Game of Thrones
Paul Giamatti, Too Big to Fail
Guy Pearce, Mildred Pierce
Tim Robbins, Cinema Verite
Eric Stonestreet, Modern Family

My Pick: Paul Giamatti Who Will Win: Eric Stonestreet

Best Actress in a TV Drama

Claire Danes, Homeland
Mireille Enos, The Killing
Julianna Margulies, The Good Wife
Madeleine Stowe, Revenge
Callie Thorne, Necessary Roughness

My Pick: Claire Danes Who Will Win: Claire Danes

Best Actress in a TV Musical or Comedy

Laura Dern, Enlightened
Zooey Deschanel, New Girl
Tina Fey, 30 Rock
Laura Linney, The Big C
Amy Poehler, Parks and Recreation

My Pick: Zooey Deschanel Who Will Win: Laura Dern

Best Actress in a Miniseries or Made-for-TV Movie

Romola Garai, The Hour
Diane Lane, Cinema Verite
Elizabeth McGovern, Downton Abbey
Emily Watson, Appropriate Adult
Kate Winslet, Mildred Pierce

My Pick: Kate Winslet Who Will Win: Kate Winslet

Best Supporting Actress in TV Series, Miniseries, or Made-for-TV Movie

Jessica Lange, American Horror Story
Kelly Macdonald, Boardwalk Empire
Maggie Smith, Downton Abbey
Sofia Vergara, Modern Family
Evan Rachel Wood, Mildred Pierce

My Pick: Jessica Lange Who Will Win: Jessica Lange

At least, that’s what he’s been explaining in one media interview after another to drum up interest for the show. Usually, the avowed athiest just does his shtick and gets out of the way.

Heck, if the folks behind the annual Globes telecast don’t want him back for another hosting assignment, so be it, he often says.

Lately, Gervais has been downright chatty in defending himself against charges that he’s far more cruel than funny. So, will this year’s event, to be broadcast 8 p.m. Sunday night on NBC, bring more of Gervais’s politically correct firepower – hitting addict celebrities, aging starlets and people of faith?

Can Gervais resist a Tebow crack?

Gervais finds himself in a predicament. If he’s not at least a little outrageous his performance will be seen as a letdown. But, in Hollywood, you have to be the appropriate kind of outrageous. That means you can only mock politicians on the right side of the ideological aisle. Christians are fair game, Muslims are not. The Kardashian jokes write themselves.

The alleged outrage over his antics is apparently as phony as Pamela Anderson’s decolletage. Every time Gervais uncorks an outrageous comment the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, the group behind the Globes, releases a shocked statement. A few weeks later, the HFPA reconsiders and finds the number for Gervais’ agent once again.

To be truly cutting edge, Gervais could unleash a fair but biting commentary on President Barack Obama first three years in office, the kind that could easily lose the room in a matter of seconds. Is anyone else doing that in the comedy realm? Or, he could pick up a theme started recently by George Lucas about why so few films with people of color are greenlit each year.

Awkward.

If Gervais slams the usual suspects he’ll be nothing more than a huskier Simon Cowell, an insult hurler as predictable as many of the movies being honored this weekend. Let’s see if Gervais can really let loose as promised. Maybe all the explanations are setting us up for just that?

If so, Gervais will have to watch the 2013 Golden Globes telecast from the comfort of his own home.

Today:

Gervais, who has hosted the Globes for the past two years and will do so again on Sunday night, continued his chat from last week with TODAY’s Matt Lauer on Wednesday, refusing to apologize for being offensive from time to time.

“What am I doing? I’m coming up with jokes and annoying people,” he said. “I think offense is taken, not given. If you don’t let yourself be offended, you’re not offended. Some people are offended by quality; some people are offended by mixed marriage; some people are offended by homosexuality. What are we meant to do, stop all those things because someone’s offended? No.”

The newest Entertainment Weekly lets frequent Golden Globes host Ricky Gervais do just, and it was as awkward and self-serving as you might fear.

Gervais, the star of “The Office” and a loud and proud athiest, used a guest column in EW [link not available] to defend himself against charges he’s a cruel, vindictive joke slinger. You’d think an edgy comic would revel in such a reputation, especially since all those mean jokes didn’t prevent him from securing yet another Globes hosting gig this Sunday.

No, Gervais wants to show us he’s a kinder, gentler comic, and in doing so he pens a self-serving rant that’s neither funny nor illuminating.

Gervais says he “tends to explore contentious and taboo subjects,” one reason why so many people are offended by his act. “I like to take the audience to places they haven’t been before,” he boasts. But will his Sunday shtick really be so cutting edge? Will he dare poke fun at the current occupant in the White House? Will he mock those who wish to strike words out of the English language?

Doubtful.

It’s far more likely he’ll taunt people of faith – but not Muslims – and other soft targets.

Gervais’s 2011 show joke about the photo-shopped “Sex and the City 2″ posters was meant to critique how we idealize youth, not wisdom. Tweaking the validity of Hugh Hefner’s upcoming marriage during that same ceremony was his way of letting people know the coupling had little to do with old fashioned love. Hef and his squeeze du jour never made it down the aisle, alas.

“I think history has dealt with this question,” he smugly writes, as if he were Kreskin pulling a shock prediction out of his hat.

And when he ribbed Robert Downey Jr. for his drug-riddled past, Gervais was merely showing how society can’t deal honestly with addiction.

“The joke isn’t laughing at the fact that he used to drink and do drugs; the joke is the elephant in the room,” he says.

Why would Gervais even bother to pen such a column? Is he responding to a culture in which saying the “wrong” joke can send a comic to humor purgatory or a GLAAD re-education camp? Or is it a preemptive strike against a real doozy of a monologue coming our way this weekend?

Either way, Gervais is much funnier when he’s letting his jokes fly and not taking himself, or his shtick, so seriously.

What a novel idea.

First, some background:

Did Ricky Gervais cross the line by being his usual, I-could-care-less-what-people-think-about-me self?

The British comedian evoked online ire after posting a series of tweets referencing “mongs,” once a slur directed at people with Down’s Syndrome, and sometimes accompanying them with photos of him making silly faces. “Two mongs don’t make a right,” read one tweet. “Night night monglets,” he told his followers on Oct. 14.

Criticism came quick. Comedians and Down’s Syndrome advocacy groups have called out Gervais for reviving the word, but he claims “mong” now means something else.

“Well done everyone who pointed out that Mong USED to be a derogatory term for DS,” he wrote, referring to Down’s Syndrome. “Gay USED to mean happy. Words change. Get over it.”

Here’s the latest:

Ricky Gervais has taken a swipe at his fellow funnymen for failing to speak out to support him in the ongoing controversy over his use of a derogatory word associated with Down Syndrome. … Now he’s taken to his blog to predict other comedians will soon be joining his growing list of detractors. Gervais writes, “I love how me using ‘mong’ to mean ‘div’ or ‘gimp’ (and explaining that 20 times) has become… ‘Ricky Gervais abuses Down’s Syndrome children.’ Ha ha. Why children?… I also love how everyone is trying to get in on it too. “We’ll definitely see some comedians on daytime telly discussing how terrible I am, then mentioning their upcoming gig that’s not selling. Good luck to them though… All these people saying it’s ‘disgusting’ and ‘ban him from the telly’… They never liked me anyway. They couldn’t have or they would understand.”

You first, Mr. Gervais.

After a good faith search, I’ve been unable to come up with a single example of Ricky Gervais expressing any support for Tracy Morgan after those fascists at GLAAD trotted him around the country on a re-education tour for daring to target gays in his act. As a matter of fact, I couldn’t find an example of Gervais supporting any comedic talent targeted by GLAAD’s increasingly chilling speech police. Not Chelsea Handler. Not “Saturday Night Live.”

If I missed something, I apologize in advance. If not, it’s still not too late, Mr. Gervais.

It’s also worth nothing that unlike those with Down Syndrome, gays are more than capable of defending themselves. So if I were to ever go PC and enlist in the Humor Police, what Gervais did would be a much higher priority.

The photo of him posing as a Christ-figure is worth addressing because it is most likely to generate controversy for obvious reasons.  My first reaction was, frankly, disappointment.  That’s the best he can do?  I happen to think Mr. Gervais is hilarious, and his funniest material is usually the most provocative, but this one just fell flat.

After all, how many times are we going to be subjected to some knock-off of the Christ pose, which is obviously intended to inflame Christians?  In short, it’s been done to death.  Christians are an easy target and it doesn’t take much imagination, or cajones, to take pot shots at them.  In America, it’s perfectly fine to hate on the Christians.

If Mr. Gervais had real cajones, he would have created an image that is offensive to Jews.  Even though anti-Semitism runs deep and wide in this country, and often goes unrecognized and unreported, it’s still not so easy to openly hate on the Jews.   There are enough organizations and individuals that will defend us against anything remotely offensive, but the social price is high enough that Mr. Gervais is too smart to risk his career.

Nor is he likely to provide an image offensive to militant Muslims.  As John Nolte pointed out, they will literally take your head off if they don’t get the joke.  Not only is Mr. Gervais likely fond of his head, Muslims are presently in the company of the P.C. Police.  He’d likely to go P.C. jail for taking a swipe in that territory.

What would’ve been provocative, and done free speech and comedians in general a great service, is to have worn a Tracy Morgan mask and replaced “ATHIEST” with “HOMOPHOBE”, while keeping the same pose.   Now that would’ve burned a few barn doors off.  As my old math teacher used to say, “There is no point in getting angry, unless one is going to get angrier and angrier to the end”.

But let’s move on to Mr. Gervais questions.  Mr. Nolte dismissed the queries as being self-important.  To an extent, I agree.  The context in which these questions are presented lends a narcissistic edge to the whole presentation. Stripping away the context, however, we are left with intriguing questions.  Mr. Gervais is no stranger to philosophy, misguided though he may sometimes be.  Let’s not dismiss the value of the questions simply because we don’t like his theology (or lack thereof).

“What is a social conscience?” 

I’m loathe to cite Wikipedia, but the definition therein is pretty concise and works for me.

In short, “to be aware of the problems that different societies and communities face on a day-to-day basis”.

Does it involve positive action, or simply awareness?

Awareness.  It is to be “conscious of”, and any individual — even those utterly lacking in compassion — will have at least some minimal awareness of those problems simply based on daily interactions.  It can involve positive action if one chooses.  Of course, “positive action” is defined subjectively.  Liberals will find vastly different methods to address problems than Conservatives, while politicians in general will certainly leave everyone worse off, while driving the getaway car with piles of money in the trunk.

“What is art?” 

I’ve already written about the difference between “high art” and “popular art”.  But I will say this: utilizing the criteria set out in the linked essay, Mr. Gervais’ photo is just bad art. 

And does being art automatically justify something? 

I’m not sure what he is asking here.  Comments welcome. 

Does art have its own conscience? Or is it amoral? 

The work itself is simply an inanimate object.  Just as a gun is.  A gun itself, like art, is inert.  Both are amoral and have no conscience. 

Can there be art that is so bad that it is no longer art? 

No, it’s just bad art. 

And could art be great art but cause great harm? 

The question is vague because “harm” is not defined, nor is “great”.   Can high art hurt someone’s feelings or offend?  Unquestionably, yes.  Further, in examining the criteria of high art, there is nothing that prohibits such a work from causing “great harm”.   Take, for example, the art produced by the Third Reich, including Leni Riefensthal’s Triumph of the Will and Olympia. These films are considered to be seminal pieces of film history, of filmmaking, and of art.   Did they cause great harm?   The Third Reich was evil.  One valid argument is that anything it produced is fruit of the poisonous tree — and therefore, evil.  I’d give that answer to be an unqualified “yes”. 

Can art “cause” anything? 

You better believe it.   A piece of art is an external stimulus.  Therefore, a reaction or response is an effect from that stimulus. 

Anyway, what photo of me is your favorite? 

Hmmph.  Maybe the questions weren’t as provocative as I first thought.

Why Christian symbols? We’re awfully easy pickings. If you’re a rich Hollywood star, offending us takes about as much courage as bringing a case of beer to a frat party.

Why not Islamic images? Where’s that comedic edge and ballsy envelope pushing we’re always being told about when it comes to our Artistic Class? Christians are tired of this self-important posing. Islamists will take your head off. I would think that Islamist intolerance (and racism and sexism and homophobia and fundamentalism) would be a bigger target than than Christian eye rolls.

Well, if nohing else, at least Gervais was good enough to bring the pretension:

 I thought the caption … could be “Stand up for what you believe”.

Doesn’t he mean for “what you don’t believe”?

Actually, he doesn’t. That’s why I call him Gervais an “evangelical atheist.” He’s one of those obnoxious non-believers always pushing his non-belief on you. He’s like a Mooonie without the charm, flowers or airport.

Back to the pretension:

Should art have a social conscience?

I’m a comedian. Some people probably object to me using the term artist about such a lowly profession. And some people think I shouldn’t even be pondering such highfalutin questions, let alone answering them.

So for a change I’ll try to be economical with my opinions and simply try to provoke yours.

First of all, what is a social conscience?

Help us all, Gervais is actually turning into the insufferable, self-important David Brent.

The other day, I clicked the link at the top of Big Hollywood that led me to a commentary by Michael Lee at “The Wrap.” Mr. Lee takes aim at John Nolte’s commentary about the Ricky Gervais performance at the Golden Globes.  As I waded  through the piece I quickly realized that Mr. Lee didn’t understand the basic points that John made.

And this, unfortunately, is typical.

John Nolte made the astute observation that Gervais‘ performance was awesome because he took the witty, acidic, and mean spirited humor that is usually aimed by Hollywood at the American populace and turned it on the sanctimonious, self-righteous entertainment community.   Had Gervais been ten times more vulgar but aimed it all at Sarah Palin, George Bush, and people who believed in God, there would be no discussion.  There would be no outrage.  There would be absolutely zero press.  Gervais would probably be paid double to return next year.

Lee explains that many of Gervais‘ targets, like the Bush supporting Bruce Willis or the Libertarian minded Angelina Jolie, are far from typical Hollywood leftists.  Make no mistake, Lee informs us, Gervais is no friend to conservatives.  Just because he’s making fun of Hollywood, we anti-intellectual, anti-science types need to think about who he insulted during the show.  If we just “connected the dots” we probably wouldn’t be so excited.

But the point lost on Lee is that we already have.

There’s simply no need for Lee to explain to us that Gervais is no conservative; no one at Big Hollywood has ever claimed him to be one.  Nolte was merely making light of the fact that Gervais and we at Big Hollywood just so happen to share the pleasure of taking anointed Hollywood elites down a peg.  We’re talking what’s truly edgy humor in 2011, Lee’s talking political ideology.  We’re talking apples, he’s talking space ships.

Here’s another aspect to Gervaisgate that hasn’t been touched on.  It’s an aspect that I’m sure will fall far beyond the scope of understanding by our detractors.

Even though my resume doesn’t contain a bunch of projects with “A” list celebrities, I do know them.  Personally.  You see, Leigh Scott knows how to party.  I’ve never been the guy to use those relationships to further my career because I always figured I’d be better off approaching them from a more level playing field.  I’ve always felt awkward, sitting drunk at a table at the Sky Bar, brining up a screenplay or project.  I enjoy being “the fun guy” who doesn’t talk business but can drink everyone under the table.  I like it when an actor says to me, “I didn’t know you made films.  Why didn’t you call me?”

We will see how my plans works out.

But I was there when a certain A-list actress stripped nude in the hallway of the Chateau Marmont and decided it would be fun to do cartwheels.  I’ve sat with a notorious, leftist, movie star drinking Grey Goose and hitting on UCLA sorority girls while he texted his sick wife telling her he’d be home soon.  I’ve had drinks with a certain talk show host while he entertained his high priced call girl.  And, I’ve crammed into a nightclub restroom stall with an Oscar winner and an Emmy winner to consume illegal narcotics.

I’ve seen these people at their worst.  Going off on racist and misogynist rants.  Cheating on their wives and husbands.  Crying over failed relationships and cancelled pilots.  Getting sick and throwing up all over their Mercedes 500 SL.

If you’re reading this, “you know who,” you remember that night.  Awesome, right?

My intent is not to create a Big Hollywood version of Gawker’s “Blind Items.”  The point is, I know that the politically correct nonsense, the sanctimonious lectures and soap box speeches, and the displays of charity and compassion are all for show.  Most of the people who grace our movie and television screens are insecure degenerates.  Charlie Sheen, believe it or not, is by far not the worst.  He just doesn’t try and hide it.  He doesn’t care what people think.  I kinda respect that.

What Gervais did was let us, the humble masses, in on the joke.  That wasn’t just a routine.  It’s what he would say if you were doing shots with him at the China Club.  It wasn’t that he “brought down” the elites of Hollywood, he elevated the viewer into the inner circle.  Bringing down the top appeals to progressives.  The notion of elevating the bottom appeals to conservatives.   No wonder we liked it.

Now, if he had included hookers and blow, we could have had the full experience.

To recap: Leftists are often unwilling or incapable of engaging the cogent arguments conservatives make. Ricky Gervais gave us a glimpse into the inner workings of the Hollywood social scene.  Actors are degenerates.  I just admitted to committing a felony on a conservative website.  Yeah, that about sums it up.

Let’s hope Ricky Gervais hosts another awards show, or that other hosts follow in his footsteps.

Likewise, let’s hope Michael Lee rereads John Nolte’s post and writes a commentary that actually addresses the issue at hand.

The point of both my pieces seems crystal clear, narrow in their scope, and even a little repetitive. But let me repeat it again…

 Hollywood has spent the last two decades hammering and insulting Middle America, Christians, and conservatives. Worse, they do it with sucker punches that insultingly come out of nowhere in what’s advertised as apolitical entertainment. Furthermore, this is an industry that prides itself on pushing the “edgy” envelope at every opportunity right in our face and when we least expect it. Sunday night, Hollywood got a taste of their own medicine and proved they couldn’t take it. It was revealing and it was deserved. Bravo, Ricky.

That’s not a political or partisan statement. It’s more of what you might call a Ms. Manners type of approach. I never said I thought Gervais was funny and I never said anything close to what many others have about all these “puffed up, self-important stars getting what they had coming.” Undoubtedly there are many stars who are puffed up and self-important but I truthfully don’t think that alone is reason enough to spoil their evening. And I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Gervais is a little puffed up and self-important in his own right.

My point was simply… How does it feel you sucker-punching envelope pushers? How does it feel to finally have your evening ruined with unexpected “edgy”  insults? Oh, and it’s kind of  dumb to run around and show the world you can’t take a joke, isn’t it?

Anyway, in a response titled Don’t Throw a Tea Party for Ricky Gervais Just Yet, here’s how Michael Lee at The Wrap responded [emphasis mine]:

John Nolte should be more careful when he picks his heroes.

Gervais didn’t come out swinging against Obama. He didn’t renounce his membership in Britain’s National Health System. His targets weren’t Susan Sarandon or Alec Baldwin. …

If Nolte is so naïve to think this was some brave political statement he should try to get Ricky to speak at the Republican Convention. That ought to be a lot of fun. Nolte and his friends meanwhile do what they do.

Now, I like The Wrap. You can tell because I don’t beat them up here. They really are very good at what they do, but Lee is arguing with something I didn’t write. Where did I in any way even nudge along the idea that Gervais was making some kind of political statement or was on our side?

I’m also well aware of Gervais’ politics and while I’m a fan who recognizes his genius, I have criticized him on this site more than once for his evangelical atheism, especially his sucker-punching of Christians with a poorly thought out anti-Christian diatribe intentionally released near Christmas. But let me stop here and praise him for his equal-opportunity sucker punching. 

Anyway, I would love for someone to argue my actual point, because (he said modestly) I think it’s an interesting one and anyone who’s not like Hollywood knows of what I speak. Whether it’s an awards show or a movie or a television program or a novel or a magazine… If it comes out of Hollywood, we who believe in God, don’t hate Sarah Palin, love our country and know Global Cooling Global Warming Climate Change is a lie, are constantly being caught off guard and having our experience marred or outright ruined with cheap, unexpected political and social insults.

Sunday night, Hollywood sat down for what they thought would be a relaxing, entertaining celebration of their work and instead got sucker punched with similar type insults.

Sucks don’t it?

So maybe, just maybe, Hollywood will be a little more empathetic in the future when it comes to their own unceasing litany of spell-breaking, off-story cheap shots aimed at half the customers. It’s childish, unnecessary, and certainly doesn’t elevate the product.

A brother can dream, right?

One more thing to clear up in The Atlantic:

[T]he British comedian’s act has won over one hard-to-reach constituency: Hollywood-hating conservatives. … Big Hollywood blogger John Nolte couldn’t stop raving about his performance.

I don’t hate Hollywood. I hate the media.