The Golden Globes are entertaining, but no longer matter

The Golden Globes don't matter.

That's what host Ricky Gervais repeated more than anything else last night. He begged the group of actors gathered in the Beverly Hilton Hotel to not cry, choke up or violently shake when receiving their award. As he put it, "No one cares about this award other than you."

Here's the thing: As intolerable as Gervais may be, he's not wrong. But not for reasons many might think. The group of judges that decide who receives a Golden Globe award, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA), has a history of purposely voting against the film and television Academy's.

Whereas voting members of both Academy's (which is made up of industry talent) tend to favor icons and A-list powerhouses, the HFPA (made up of international journalists) like to go with either the underdog or international talent.

For that reason alone, the Golden Globes make for an interesting night. People take home accolades that no one would have guessed on their award show bingo cards, and when it comes to television series, it gives lesser known titles a fighting chance at renewal.

The issue with this kind of blatant rebellious nature, however, is that more deserving series and titles are often left in the cold because they're too similar to what the film and television Academy's would collectively lose their mind over.

Let's use Amazon's impressive feat last night as an example. The streaming service's original series, Mozart in the Jungle, took home the award for Best TV Series, Comedy or Musical, while its star, Gael Garcia Bernal,  walked away with the award for Best Actor in a TV Series, Comedy or Musical.

The show itself beat out Veep, Silicon Valley and Transparent while Bernal swiped the award from hot contenders like Aziz Ansari (Master of None) and Jeffrey Tambor (Transparent).

It's not that there's anything wrong with Mozart in the Jungle. It's a fine show that made an impressive debut on a relatively small platform — in comparison to premium cable and other streaming services like Netflix. The issue is that Mozart in the Jungle was just fine. It wasn't exceptional like Silicon Valley's second season was, wasn't as funny as Veep's most recent season and certainly wasn't as boundary pushing as Transparent has continuously been.

Objectively, Mozart in the Jungle didn't deserve the award as much as other shows did, but because it's both an underdog and representative of international talent, the HFPA went of its way to ensure the show took home as many awards as it could.

There wouldn't be anything wrong with the way the HFPA handles its business if it didn't feel so incredibly phony and misguided.

It's not the first time the HFPA has done this, either. Last year, the organization handed out awards to more first-time shows and their actors than anything else. Transparent and The Affair walked away with top prizes for Best TV Series, Drama and Best TV Series, Comedy or Musical. Its stars, including Jeffrey Tambor and Ruth Wilson took home the top acting prizes for their respective categories, while Gina Rodriguez was given the award for Best Actress in a TV Series, Comedy or Musical for her work on Jane the Virgin. A show, up until then, that was mostly ignored by the Academy.

Again, it's not like these actors and series weren't deserving of their awards, but year after year the way the HFPA hands out Golden Globes is a blatant "fuck you" to the Academy's.

Whereas the Golden Globes will try to be different by nominating new shows and ignoring returning seasons of hit series, the Emmys usually go with the predictable candidate based on critical acclaim throughout the year.

There wouldn't be anything wrong with the way the HFPA handles its business if it didn't feel so incredibly phony and misguided.

The Golden Globes aren't about who deserves the award the most anymore, and hasn't been for quite some time. The Golden Globes are about proving they're still relevant when being held up against the Oscars and the Emmys.

It's the same reason the HFPA asks Ricky Gervais back year after year. He's a shock jock. He's going to say things that people will tweet, write and rant about. In doing so, the Golden Globes stay relevant. They stay an award show that people are going to tune into every January, despite the actual awards holding little level of prestige.

Here's another example of how weird the HFPA can be about the awards they hand out. Rami Malek, the star of USA's Mr. Robot, was shunned last night. His costar Christian Slater won the award for Best Supporting Actor in a TV Series, Drama for his work on the show and the show itself won Best Series, Drama. The HFPA acknowledged, as did almost every critic last year, that what the debut season of Mr. Robot had accomplished was truly special and award worthy.

Except for the show's main actor, and to a large extent, the reason the series excelled in the first place. Instead of Malek joining his costar in taking home an award for his work, he lost to John Hamm and Mad Men.

Why? Because Rami Malek is a shoe in at the Emmy Awards this year and Hamm isn't. The Emmy Awards finally gave Hamm his trophy for his work on AMC's series last year and after receiving a standing ovation from his industry peers, it felt like the send-off Hamm had waited for. Not unlike the year before, when Breaking Bad and its cast got to have one final bow in front of their friends and colleagues for their final work on the show.

Knowing that Malek is more than likely going to take home the Emmy for his work in Mr. Robot, the HFPA purposely went with the actor they knew the Emmy Awards wouldn't highlight. It's nothing against Bernal, it's just that Malek was the obvious choice.

It's fine that the HFPA wants to highlight underdog choices, and it's absolutely great that they are one of the only shows that truly highlight international talent, but it should be done so genuinely, not with rebellious intent.

The biggest joke in Hollywood is about how the Golden Globes have become the biggest joke. It's the easiest award to buy (just look at any David O. Russell movie produced by Harvey Weinstein) and it's the easiest award show to schmooze your way into.

But they're not going to change anytime soon. The HFPA likes being the award show equivalent to the weird fraternity off campus. It's full of unexpected people who have spent the entire night drinking and laughing with one another while trying to warm up to members of the HFPA so they can be nominated again next year.

Unfortunately for them, that just makes it even more irrelevant in comparison to award shows that carry actual prestige, like the Emmy Awards and the Oscars. Or, as an even better example of what award shows can be, the BAFTAs.

So, no, the Golden Globes don't matter. But they are the most entertaining and the most controversial. For that reason alone, they won't be going anywhere anytime soon.