MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

The Golden Globes Acts…

… like The Golden Globes.
An utter mess.
Even Brokeback Mountain, which led with 7 nominations – pretty much 2 short of the most possible – came up short of Jake Gyllenhaal, who couldn’t make it past Paul Giamatti (one of two nods, the other Russell Crowe) or Will Ferrell (one of four Producers nods, with Best Pic/Musical, Nathan Lane, and Song)
Munich got one of 5 Best Screenplay nods and one of 6 Best Director nods… but no Best Picture slot and no other slots. The other three films that got director and screenplay (BBM, Good Night, And Good Luck, and Match Point) all got Best Picture nods. Meanwhile, Crash got a Screenplay nod, but only one other nod (Matt Dillon) while King Kong scored only one nod… for Peter Jackson’s directing.
There was plenty of old fashioned Globes butt sniffing… Russell Crowe, Gwyneth Paltrow, Johnny Depp (for Charlie & The Chocolate Factory… don’t expect him to show up for this when his Libertine turn was snubbed), Will Ferrell, Zhang Ziyi (the celebrity of Geisha, which had only a Score nod in addition).
There were also some happy surprises. The embrace of The Squid & The Whale, Terrence Howard, Pierce Brosnan, Cillian Murphy, Maria Bello.
But for a small group that doesn’t vote in branches, there is no real comprehnsible logic here. They loved Brokeback. I see that. And they really liked Match Point. After that… smells like consultant spirit.
Of course, this is also a reflection of the awards year we are knee deep in… there are no answers, just endless questions. Brokeback Mountain is clearly the will-be-nominated leader. But last year, we were reminded of two things: 1. The Oscar winner didn’t need to dominate the precursors and 2. Every critical award in the town didn’t make Sideways the Oscar winner.
Readng through the list of nominations… still, after reading them a few times… a little like being on a bad drunk.

Be Sociable, Share!

65 Responses to “The Golden Globes Acts…”

  1. bicycle bob says:

    i can’t believe munich didn’t get one of the 5. has to be the biggest story so far from the globes.

  2. Bruce says:

    It has taken me three or four times reading thru this list to actually try and comprehend it. Seems like no rhyme or reason to some of the choices. But that’s what you get with the foreign press. Glad to see some work recognized like Paul Giamatti, Cillian Murphy, Constant Gardener, and History of Violence.

  3. Krazy Eyes says:

    Constant Gardener is still my favorite film of the year so I’m happy to see it listed along with Rachel Weisz. Why hasn’t Ralph Fiennes been getting more accolades for his performance? Too strong a field? I thought he was excellent.

  4. bicycle bob says:

    best actor is going to be a tough field to crack even for someone as good as fiennes this yr.
    got to figure u got locks like phoenix, ledger, hoffman.

  5. Joe Leydon says:

    VERY happy to see Pierce Brosnan recognized for his audaciously self-satirizing performance in “The Matador.” And I’m happy to see that Matt Dillion is a Globe nominee for Best Supporting Actor in “Crash.” I’ll be even happier when he gets his Oscar nomination in a few weeks.

  6. Mr. Emerson says:

    I wholeheartedly agree with Bruce that this list boggles the mind. The lack of a Best Picture nomination for Munich, the all-over-the-place acting nods which still snub The Upside of Anger, the elevation of more critical darlings than expected…wow.
    Based on this, I’m calling Brokeback Mountain and either Pride and Prejudice or Walk the Line for the two Best Pictures (the former, by the way, now should firmly take the top spot on the next Oscar charts) but except for Reese Witherspoon I can’t pick out a winner in any other category…everything has a least two good choices.
    And on that note, if the final Oscar Best Director nominations list includes five of these six, especially if they leave out Clooney, it might be the most potent group of nominees in one single category since the Best Actor race of 1973 (Lemmon, Brando, Nicholson, Pacino, Redford).

  7. Terence D says:

    I’m trying to remember the last Oscar winner not to get a Best Picture Globes nom. Anyone remember? Munich may have a tough hill to climb. Or Mountain.

  8. BluStealer says:

    I think Reese is a lock for the Best Actress. At least a lock for the Globe win. And I think Oscar gold too.
    I thought I was seeing things. Will Ferrel a Best Supporting nod? From “Night at the Roxbury” to that. It deserves its own award.

  9. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Yes, they may be an “utter mess”, but holy crap, you gotta love these nominations!
    If there was any precurser awards that would’ve left out Munich and Memoirs – the Golden Globes would have been my last choice. I thought they would’ve eaten them up with a spoon, especially considering when they voted Memoirs was still hot property.
    But, damn, I find it hard anyone following the awards can not be in some form of shock over these nominations. They’re crazy. Look at the BP Drama! Those are probably five of the finest movies of the year, and I highly down movies like A History of Violence, Match Point and Constant Gardener had the backstage knowhow to somehow get these nominations through more than the power of their movies. Focus already had BM, they didn’t need Constant Gardener to be an awards hit, but look at it now. Fernano Meirelles must be jumping up and down.
    And how about Maria Bello for lead.
    I remember somebody on here having a go at me because I thought I heard Bello was being considered a lead and the person told me to “see the movies you’re talking about and you’ll realise she’s supporting.”
    But, seriously, Ouch to Munich – I thought they could’ve easily gotten a Drama nod.
    No Diane Keaton, which is very strange. Is she slipping away?
    Dave, some of your comments are extremely harsh. You can hate the Globes and think they’re stupid, but how can you complain when they come up with lists such as they have for BP Drama?
    I’m glad for Terance Howard, because I seemed to be the only person who had kept him in the Top 5 for Oscar predictions all along. Can he keep the momentum up? Can any of the surprises rise up? Brosnan? Violence?

  10. bicycle bob says:

    brokeback mountain has to be the favorite now and numero uno on the chart list.

  11. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Oh, I need to bring this up: WHAT ON EARTH IS “CHRISTMAS IN LOVE”? It got a Best Song nomination but nobody seems to have heard of it.
    A search on IMDb shows me it a 2 hour italian romantic comedy with Danny DeVito and, er, Ronn Moss as himself (RONN MOSS!). And their release schedule page doesn’t even make mention of an American release date. I think out of everything, THAT is the strangest nomination of all. Seriously strange.
    And, yes, I think BM is favourite for Picture, Director, Actor (I think Ledger has more of a chance over Hoffman at the Globes) and probably song and score. I’d say Scarlett is winning Supp. actress but she’s already won a globe, so who knows.

  12. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Oh, and sorry AGAIN. I think the reason Jake Gyllenhaal is absent is because he was considered a lead by the HFPA and, quite obviously, didn’t make it in due to competition.

  13. Josh says:

    The Globes. Just an excuse to party and hit up and open bar.
    Matt Dillon. Needed this nom to compete with his brother, Johnny Drama. He was starting to fall behind him in the family pecking order.

  14. Josh says:

    I’m pretty sure Gyllenhall was put into Supporting consideration. Much like Clooney in Syriana. But I could be wrong. Would seem the smart thing to do with Ledger generating all the best acot heat.

  15. Bruce says:

    Keep in mind I haven’t seen Munich yet but from all I have read I find it hard to believe it can’t crack the Five here. Also, King Kong. How it can’t crack the list I don’t know. My personal best movie of the year. The Globes usually reward a huge movie like that. Makes for a head scratcher.

  16. Filipe says:

    I guess The New World is oficially dead. And Memoirs of a Geisha isn’t far behind.
    Match Point, History of Violence and Constant gardener got renewed hopes.
    No Munich and no Kong among Best Drama is a surprise. I guess by now Munich not only lost it’s frontrunner status, it’s not a lock to be nominated either (I still think it’s getting among the five, but it’ll be harder than originally expected). Kong failing to get the globe nod makes it lose some momentum, but it’s still the big popular film in the race, MUnich is starting to look a lot like Amistad to me.
    Walk the Line is in some ways the big winner here: it’s the only of the big hollywood movies keeping it’s momentum intact.

  17. EDouglas says:

    Match Point getting in over Munich is a farce…I officially dub that the most overrated movie of the year.

  18. LesterFreed says:

    The Terence Howard nod officially made my day.

  19. Terence D says:

    I guess David can write that obituary for “A New World” now. No nod for at least Malick? I guess Spielberg took it away when he slid into the Directors slot.
    I still really want to see it. I find Malick movies challenging. Even if they don’t really follow plots or stories. He shoots such a great film visually.

  20. bicycle bob says:

    the thing with match point is i think people are just overjoyed that woody allen didn’t cast himself in the lead and get a romance with a girl like scarlett. people are grateful for the little things.

  21. Haggai says:

    “I’m trying to remember the last Oscar winner not to get a Best Picture Globes nom. Anyone remember? Munich may have a tough hill to climb. Or Mountain.”
    Wow, great question, Terence D. A quick run through the previous GGs on IMDB indicates that the answer is Gandhi…HOWEVER, it was considered a foreign film by the GGs, and it was nominated (and won) in that category instead of Best Drama (same thing for Chariots of Fire the year before, it won for foreign film). So it appears that the last movie that COULD have been nominated for best pic by the GGs, but wasn’t, and yet went on to WIN the Oscar for Best Pic was…The Sting.

  22. Terence D says:

    Good work and thanks for doing the research, Haggai.
    I just couldn’t remember the last Oscar winner to not even get a nomination for the Globes. It means Munich has a tough road ahead of it to win. Maybe even to get a nomination. Something I would have never have thought of 24 hours ago.

  23. Haggai says:

    I still think Munich is likely to get a best picture Oscar nom…I mean, what are the odds that the Academy will pick Match Point instead? But yeah, Munich’s chances for actually winning the best pic Oscar appear to have taken a pretty serious hit.

  24. Josh says:

    Munich will get a nom. But it may be tough to win now. It definately has fallen from the lead. How far is still to be determined.
    It makes it an interesting year when the race is wide open like this. Right now I cna see any of 8 films actually winning.

  25. enochemery says:

    The shock for me is that Capote couldn’t manage a nomination in an EXTREMELY indie-friendly year. What happened?

  26. jsnpritchett says:

    I’m not surprised that The New World didn’t get any Golden Globe nominations. Thin Red Line didn’t get any in 1998–and was then nominated for 7 Academy Awards. Maybe the HFPA just doesn’t “get” Malick anymore (they nominated Days of Heaven for 2 awards years ago).

  27. Joseph says:

    Let’s not forget that Malick’s “The Thin Red Line” didn’t score one GG nomination but ended up scoring 7 Oscar nominations (including director and picture). But the difference is is that “The Thin Red Line” was honored by several critics groups (including some director wins for Malick) while “The New World” has yet to generate any of that recognition.

  28. Hopscotch says:

    OF COURSE Munich is dead…Jeff Wells wrote a piece about it. And when Jeff “Fair and balanced about Spielberg” Wells writes about Munich you can take it to the bank. The guy just can’t move on. Munich really hasn’t been seen by THAT many people. Mostly journalists. Anyone on this blog seen it? Any spy from AICN? I think the big public reaction will determine if it’ll get nominated. My prediction: Munich, Brokeback, Walk the Line, Good Night and Good Luck, Constant Gardener.
    The New World is interesting…but the middle hour is tedious. Even for Malick. Though the opening and closing of the movie is astonishingly poetic. I hope for Emmanuel Lubezski to get a nod, and I hope he wins. But realisticly that’s it.

  29. Scooba Steve says:

    Damn. Dozens of good nominees but not a single one to get excited about.

  30. BluStealer says:

    Not excited about any of these?
    You sure? Not even Howard, Cillian Murphy, “Squid”, “Violence”, “Walk the Line”?
    There may not be any hands down juggernaut favorite but a wide open race is fine by me.

  31. I,Claudius says:

    Why are you folks searching for meaning, logic, or any kind of sense in the Golden Globe nominations? It’s futile. I don’t usually generalize but it’s common knowledge that many of the HFP members aren’t the brightest bulbs in the chandelier. A few years back I was at a screening and had a voting member ask if I’d seen the new Edward Norton film titled American History Ten. This put it all in perspective for me.

  32. Haggai says:

    LOL on American History Ten…though I imagine there are more than a few Academy members who are, shall we say, not very knowledgeable about these things either.

  33. mysteryperfecta says:

    This list is a real credibility booster for the Globes. Not because it’s a great list, but because this will be the least watched Globes ceremony in the history of time.

  34. David Poland says:

    The classic HFPA answer to why Munich was not nominated for Best Picture/Drama is that Spielberg did not come to the HFPA screening to sell the movie.
    Every single Best Picture nominee did… including the unlikely Woody Allen, who has worked for awards for the first time in his career.
    I haven’t read Wells yet (or answered his multiple phone calls), but I am curious how much time writing another anti-Munich piece with only one hand on the keyboard took. The sick thing is that he actually kind of likes the movie. But he really delights in the idea of it being killed.
    As I wrote about Munich right off, I don’t think it is the easy home run ball that was expected. But I still expect it to be there on Oscar night… which is still two months and three weeks aways. And I still, as I wrote from the start, expect Spielberg to start campaigning soon.
    You can love the nominations all you like, but they feel awfully manufactured. Why didn’t Bennett Miller get nominated? Could it be that all six directors they did pick were celebrities? I loved Johnny Depp in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, but that doesn’t seem like an organic nomination. I am good with Sarah Jessica Parker getting nominated, but was she really nominated for Family Stone or because she is a Globes favorite? (Don’t even get me started on Fox’s “wait for the Globes” suicidal marketing effort for Family Stone that was so focused on SJP that they virtually told people not to vote for Diane Keaton.)
    As I’ve written, it’s not just the Globes… the whole season is a big mess… too many small targets, not enough clear ones.

  35. Joe Straat says:

    Anyone else picking up the vibe that Brokeback Mountain is going to win the Oscars via the “Hey, everybody, let’s make a political statement without actually making one” route? Like when Denzel Washington and Halle Berry won. Not saying the Oscars weren’t worthy, but I’m sure that extra push to make a statement put them over the top. The same with Brokeback Mountain. I’m sure many people truly love this movie, but wouldn’t the prospect of supporting a gay movie and giving it the highest award on the most-watched awards ceremony in the world (Unless Bollywood has something most of America, including me, doesn’t know about) be tempting? I KNOW people are going to misread this and say, “Don’t you think it’ll get because maybe it’s a DESERVING MOVIE?” and shit like that, but what I’m saying is, depending how the political winds blow (And they do during Oscar season), the combination could make it unbeatable.

  36. Joe Leydon says:

    I don’t necessarily agree with Mr. Straat — sorry for the formality, but if I refer to you as Joe, I might look like I’m talking to myself — but he raises the same interesting point Dave alluded to a few days ago. To wit: Unlike all these other awards, including the Globes, the Oscars are voted upon by INDUSTRY members, not critics/journalists or (in the case of People’s Choice awards) civilians. And who really knows for certain, outside of the Academy membership, what motivates Academy members to vote (or NOT vote) for this or that person, this or that picture? There probably is an urge to “make a statement” in some quarters. (That’s why I firmly believe “Good Night and Good Luck” will score multiple nominations — many voters have first-hand recollections of the blacklisting period.) But it is equally likely that voters are mindful of people they genuinely like or admire — have either worked with, or would like to work with — and that can, to a degree that’s impossible to measure, play a role in influencing. Let me just throw this out there for the hell of it: “The Matador” hasn’t begun to generate much pres coverage yet, but it obviously was shown to enough HFP members to make a difference. What happnes when Academy members weigh in? Is Pierece Brosnan a popular enough fellow to atract support? Will some people be impressed (justifibaly, I think) for his willingness, if not eagerness, to send up his own image? Hell, will some voters be swayed simply because they think Brosnan was treated shabbily by the Bond movie producers?
    Oh, and before some of you start to write that Brosnan could NEVER slip into the final five Oscar nominees for best actor — wait unitl you see the movie. He’s really that good. The year’s best? Hard to say. But one of the Top Five? Well, like I say: Wait unitl you see the movie.

  37. bicycle bob says:

    the globes are starfuckers. we all know this.
    on the brosnan thing. if he gets a nom that would be shocking. i havent seen the movie but i heard hes really good. would be quite an accomplishment to come out of nowhere on a movie with little buzz. i wonder if he’ll get some sympathy votes. i like brosnan and now im looking foward to catching the matador.

  38. steve4992 says:

    Given the subject matter of Brokeback (which I haven’t seen), it will be interesting to see whether the film draws protests or attacks from the religious right. Pat Robertson et al. love to fund raise and get media attention by doing this sort of thing (witness the attack on Spongebob Squarepants), and given the critics’ awards and the GG noms, BB would certainly make a tempting target. This sort of attack could also lead Academy members to take the high ground by recognizing the film and its director.

  39. martin says:

    Is “a mess” such a bad thing? I’ll take this interesting mess over the predictable choices the last few years.

  40. Jack Price says:

    The New World is still my most hotly anticipated film for the remainder of this year, but I can’t help feeling disheartened by how unanimously it’s being ignored by critics circles.
    I know that the release was pushed back a month in order to accommodate for more time in the editing lab. Same thing happened to Alexander last year I believe (though maybe it shifted by a week or so).
    Please tell me these two cases have absolutely NOTHING in common with each other. Malick’s track record is spotless as far as I’m concerned, and I want to keep believing that a release by the recluse is worth celebrating.

  41. Hopscotch says:

    New World is pure Malick. The look, the pacing, the framing of the action. I saw it with a friend of mine who loves All of Malick’s movies and he liked the New World. So I don’t think you’ll be disappointed. But I wouldn’t put it as a big movie event of this year.

  42. Eric says:

    I read a column by Jeff Wells a week or two ago suggesting that some resistance to Brokeback Mountain must be fueled by homophobia.
    But that argument can’t be made without conceding the opposite: That some support for the movie must therefore also be fueled by those with an agenda.
    These sort of political arguments are almost never suggested by the content of the movie. And either way, the discussion overshadows the movie itself. It’s one of the reasons I’ve really grown to loathe the Oscar season and have disconnected from it almost entirely.

  43. Stella's Boy says:

    Joe L., I agree with you regarding Brosnan. I found The Matador to be good, if not great, but Brosnan is truly magnificent in it. Definitely one of my favorite performances this year.

  44. Josh says:

    There is going to be much more support for Brokeback Mountain from homosexuals and gay rights activists. It doesn’t even matter how good it turns out. Those groups will tout it and support it to the hilt. I haven’t seen any group come out against it yet so either people don’t care or it’s not that big a deal.

  45. LesterFreed says:

    I wonder how much much it must have hurt Wells to actually write a good review for “King Kong”. He was probably tasting bile as he typed it.

  46. Terence D says:

    Even if the movie is touted by gays as the best thing since sliced bread, it still needs to be good to win or get nominated for an Oscar. A movement alone won’t win it any prizes that really matter. There has to be something to it other than the gay angle.

  47. steve4992 says:

    There are plenty of “art house” movies of fairly recent vintage with gay themes and gay characters, and none of have come close to receiving the critical acclaim that Brokeback has received. I haven’t seen the movie yet, but it’s hard to believe that the Venice Film Festival, the New York Film Critics, the Los Angeles Film Critics, the Golden Globes and others have selected or nominated BB as best picture (and Ang Lee as best director) just because it furthers the “homosexual agenda” (if there is any such thing). I have to believe that the quality of the movie must have had something to do with it.

  48. David Poland says:

    Quick notes –
    1. Seven Oscar nominations for The Thin Red Line… zero Golden Globe nominations.
    2. Yes, it would be insane to say that the poliics of Brokeback Mountain are the only thing driving its succcess with critics groups… and HFPA. But particularly in the nomination process in which groups make 5 choices, the film does have the extra muscle of its politics.
    In many eyes, I am Mr. No Brokeback. But I like the movie a lot more than that. I have always said that I think it is well acted and well shot. And I like the first 50 minutes on the mountain (which includes the sex) and the last 15 minutes. My objection is the long, whinny middle. I just don’t feel the tragedy of the relationship moving forward. The tragedy would be the relationship moving foward, since I don’t think it would last and then Ennis, who doesn’t have strong social skills, would have been drawn into a world not his own and would have no breadcrumbs leading him home. But inaction, straight, gay or vegetarian, is not of much dramatic interest to me. And I will never understand how people see a 20 year relationship that never leads to any deeper committment as greatly romantic.
    Still, “It’s all the gay thing” or “it’s not the gay thing” are both positions too black and white to explain the success of the film.

  49. Lynn says:

    As weird as the movie noms are, I think the TV noms are, for the most part, pretty fantastic — getting away from the procedural dramas and formulaic comedies to reward shows and performances that are high quality, yet are different and take risks. Still, the field is strong enough that a lot of worthy potential nominees didn’t make it — Deadwood is noticeably absent from best drama, and at least three or four other shows were probably equally worthy.
    The only shame is the supporting acting nominations — with all the TV categories (drama, comedy, movie/mini) dumped into one, a lot of worthy performances, especially in ensemble shows, get left out.

  50. PandaBear says:

    Brokeback is really the first of it’s kind. A big, gay movie involving two young up and coming stars. There have been art house and indie movies with the same themes but none with two actors like this and a director like Ang Lee.

  51. Mark Ziegler says:

    After seeing BBM, I don’t see the big deal. I didn’t see any great romance. Just a terribly boring mid section of the movie that just seemed flat. It was well made and had some good acting but movie of the year?

  52. Joe Leydon says:

    Speaking of the Globes: I received this message from my best friend, who’s a civilian — well, OK, she’s a critic, but a MUSIC critic, not a FILM critic — and I have to agree with her:
    The way they categorize the movies into “drama” or “musical or comedy” seems totally screwy!
    “Hustle and Flow” — a drama about musicians with some comic elements — is a drama. “Walk the Line” — a drama about musicians with some comic elements — is a musical or comedy. Huh?

  53. Joe Leydon says:

    Oh, and just in case anyone’s interested: The original 1933 “King Kong” airs on Turner Classic Movies tonight at 8 pm EST.

  54. Mackygee says:

    It is shocking that MUNICH is missing, although the reviews are decidedly mixed and the screening buzz now is mixed as well. And now we have the Israeli consulate questioning its “authenticity.” Is it falling prey to politics? I expect it to still show up in Oscar’s final five, though. Eric Bana isn’t a shoo-in anymore — I think MUNICH’s strongest showing actor wise will be in supporting categories.
    Will Ferrell is inconceivable — even if Gyllenhaal was considered a lead, I don’t know what Ferrell is doing there. At least the HFPA had the good sense to ignore Uma Thurman’s embarrassingly off-pitch singing and clumsy dancing in the same film. THE PRODUCERS was the most excruciating film I’ve sat through so far during the screenings — it’s not even a movie, it’s more like Stroman just set up a camera and filmed the play onstage.

  55. Joe Straat says:

    I don’t mind, “Mr. Leydon.” After all, there are, what, 20s Joe/Josephs on this thing? I’m actually used to being called my last name due to such situations (Which is “Straatmann,” but double double letters are maddening for most people to spell).
    As for the topic at hand, the fact that they’re industry insiders is true, and what makes it such a fun game (Let’s face it, the Oscars are a game for most of us). Most people on these things are on the critical side or the typical movie viewer side (maybe a little of both for many of us), so we don’t know exactly how they think even though we can make pretty educated guesses. And with screenwriters, actors, directors, DPs, and other craftsman all a part of the game with generally different thought processes, things can shift in interesting ways.
    The thing about Munich is Spielberg films have won Oscars for best director and picture, they like spreading the love, and Spielberg’s had a LOT of love over the years. Unless it becomes an EVENT (which is highly unlikely, because events are like Titanic or the finishing of the Lord of the Rings trilogy) or really impacts, I don’t think it will beat BBM. There are people who may admire Munich’s craft, but to win, they need people to LOVE it. Well, love it as much as you can love a dark story of vengeance. Once the race starts, and people start rallying for or against the movies, and if, like steve4992 said, the right starts rallying against BBM, people will stand by it just to screw ’em. More so, I think, than Munich, which is Jewish politics and is nothing new for Hollywood or Spielberg. That’s what I see, for now, looking at how things have gone and guessing hwo they may think. But, who knows. An actor shoves an award host and certain things change in an instant, so we’ll see when everyone else sees the movies and reacts, invluding myself. It’s going to be interesting if BBM gets to the middle of Nebraska, though. I can see the letters to the editor now….

  56. Angelus21 says:

    I don’t see how Walk the Line is a comedy/musical. Who judges that and picks that out?

  57. joefitz84 says:

    Don’t worry about “Munich”. It’ll play much better to members of the Academy and it’ll end up with 4-7 nom’s.

  58. Lota says:

    They should change the category to Tepid Picture- drama…Tepid picture – comedy/musical.
    So much good acting this year, so few of the movies featuring fine thesps had anything but a soft punch.

  59. Joe Leydon says:

    Oh, Lota! You’re so…. critical.

  60. Hopscotch says:

    Anyone seeing Kong tonight?
    All of us seeing Kong tonight?

  61. jeffmcm says:

    I recall DP’s analysis from last year (I think it was him), that Million Dollar Baby won primarily because it was the nominee that most audience members found to be the most touchingly emotional, more than the mindcase freakout that was The Aviator, and despite how much they all love Scorsese. If Brokeback turns out to involve people in the same way, it could go all the way, beyond (apparently) the less emotional Munich.
    I love the idea from way earlier on this page of DP not calling Jeff Wells back…man, I wish I could hear those voicemail messages.

  62. joefitz84 says:

    You sure “Jeff” or you still pissed he hasn’t returned your calls???

  63. Sanchez says:

    I have to see Munich before I pass judgement on it.
    I’ll take what the Globes say with a big grain of salt.

  64. jeffmcm says:

    Yes. I am sure I would like to hear those voicemail messages.

  65. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    “I’m pretty sure Gyllenhall was put into Supporting consideration. Much like Clooney in Syriana. But I could be wrong. Would seem the smart thing to do with Ledger generating all the best acot heat.”
    Josh, the studio puts in their consideration for categories but it’s ultimately up the HFPA. That’s why Catherine Zeta-Jones got nommed for Lead with Chicago. That’s how Maria Bello got nommed for Lead this year.
    “what are the odds that the Academy will pick Match Point instead?”
    I’d suggest those odds probably aren’t at fanciful as some people think.
    “You can love the nominations all you like, but they feel awfully manufactured. Why didn’t Bennett Miller get nominated? Could it be that all six directors they did pick were celebrities?”
    Oh come on David! Maybe Bennett Miller didn’t get nominated because they didn’t fall for Capote as much as other groups have? It didn’t get in Picture or Screenplay, so why should Miller, a first timer, get in. And is Fernando Meirelles really a star? I doubt if you asked a random of the street they’d think he was a soccer star or something, not a 50 year old film director.
    On the matter of Brokeback supporters, can at least be happy that all these groups are supporting a gay-themed movie that (apparently) actually good. It would have been bad if they were awarding it everything to just have the movie turn out mediocre. All indicators suggest the movie is indeed one of the best of the year.
    Hopscotch, I’m seeing King Kong is exactly 1 hour and 15 minutes (although, 1 hour and a half with trailers and ads) and in 4 hours and a half the credits will have started to role. I’m SORT OF excited. My BLADDER is not.
    And we all know that the Musical/Comedy category at the Globes is that weird pseudo drama category where movies like Walk the Line, Ray, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, etc have more a chance at succeeding than if they went Drama which they really are.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon