The nominations
Before I say anything about The Golden Globes, just one word (?)… E!
Gotta give it to them for the courage to put amateurs who know nothing on TV.
“Dame Judi Dench… you know her from the Bond movies.” Oy.
Okay…
As always, the early results
Susu on: The Letters From Iwo Jima review
Krillian on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
Kristopher Tapley on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
Kristopher Tapley on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
Hallick on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
Joe Parts on: Welcome To The Future
qbtqpidc on: Oscar Morning Coming Down
IOv3 on: 20 Weeks Extra: Could There Be One More Turn?
20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
20 Weeks Extra: Could There Be One More Turn?
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
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
Not many outright snubs except for Condon. Where is Condon?! People like Gosling and movies like U93 weren’t exactly seen as locks, so they’re not really snubs. And why did Eastwood get two nominations. Including one for a film that was nominated NOWHERE ELSE?!
Ugh.
I predicted they’d nominate Bobby and that Abigail would miss.
WTF is Nomad?! It’s like when they nominated “Christmas in Love” last year. Yay for Clint Mansell though!
Well, they nominated “The Lives of Others.” That should count for something, right?
Now that I have nobody to cheer for this year (like BBM of yesteryear), I finally get to see how tedious and boring all of these races are. Makes me realize how stupid I was last year to get so emotionally invested in something that is entirely irrelevant.
You know, out of all the nominees, the one that gave me the most joy was Ben Affleck for Hollywoodland, a performance that i enjoyed (in fact, i wish the whole movie would have been more focused on the Reeves character). Do i think he should win, no. But i think after years of getting the shit kicked out of him in the media, it’s nice to see the guy work his way back into the game with solid performances.
And, just because we’re all thinking it….
TWO ACTING NOMINATIONS FOR DICAPRIO?
Jesus Tapdancing Christ…. The Hollywood Foreign Press needs to have their passports revoked.
I was pretty sure there was no way “Babel” was getting in the Oscar race for picture. But has any movie lead the Globes in nominations and not gotten nominated?
And that Ben Lyons on E! — what is he 12? He actually thought “The Da Vinci Code” might get nominated? Is he insane? Did he think “Superman Returns” had a shot too?
Still, ya gotta give it to Searchlight. When you can get “Thank You For Smoking” in…jesus…
The Globes are wacky this year…
Bobby over United 93….I HATE the Weinsteins
A nomination for DiCaprio for Blood Diamon, but none for Hounsou?
Gosling snubbed?
Breslin AND Shareeka Epps snubbed?
Also, I’m wondering when exactly the nominations came in…because if the tomatometer over at rotteentomatoes holds, there is no way in hell Will Smith makes it in. Ditto DiCaprio for Blood Diamond.
Should wind up being Whitaker, Sasha, O’Toole, Gosling and Leo (The Departed) for actor.
REALLY saddened by what this does to United 93, however.
Why the “oy” for Maggie Gyllenhaal? I wasn’t a huge fan of Sherrybaby as a film, but her performance, as always, is very strong. I was actually impressed, in the midst of a whole lot of choices made for star power — I like Affleck’s and Wahlberg’s performances in their 2006 films *very* much, but it’s hard not to see them as the Globes trying to form an “all-star” five in supporting — that they went with Gyllenhaal… maybe she’s perceived as a star, but despite a couple of studio movies she still seems a lot more Indie Spirit to me. So good for them for getting her in for a little-seen movie.
The Eastwood and DiCaprio double-dips both feel deeply unnecessary (and I like both DiCaprio performances a lot).
Looks like BABEL is betting the biggest Oscar buzz now.
Very happy to see the Babel love.
Also happy about Wahlberg, who should have been nominated for Huckabees a few years ago as well.
I’m SO over Clint Eastwood.
To be fair to Ben Lyons, what he said was that the Da Vinci Code movie wasn’t done right; that the book was the top bestseller and that if the movie had been made right [it would have attracted a huge audience], and it would have had a chance of being nominated. I’m not a Da Vinci fan, btw.
[]= my interpretation
Yay for Emily Blunt! This is why I love the Glibes at times.
Cold Mountain lead the GG with 8 noms and did not receive a BP Oscar nomination.Dreamgirls is in trouble with snubs in director, screenplay and score. Dreamgirls is looking like this years “Walk the Line”. It might turn out to be this years “Ray” but Dreamgirls is not winning BP.
Congrats to Leo on two well deserved lead actor noms.I think he will win for The Departed.Cogratulations to The Departed for three acting noms. Director, screenplay and best picture noms.
Cold Mountain – 8 Globe noms, one win… no Oscar Best Picture nod.
Congrats to Babel for being one less nomination embarrassed in the end.
On the other hand, I would expect as many as five Oscar nods… two fewer than Cold Mountain.
yeah the Globes don’t mean anything to the oscars, but getting an oscar nomination is about getting seen, so I think Babel does get a small boost on the , “oh, I need to finally watch that” factor. More people will probably watch screeners or go catch it at one of the few remaining theatres because of the seven nominations, six in the major categories. that may not translate to oscar love, but I would say that Babel is a little stronger than it was before the Globes. and is definitely ahead of United 93 now.
On the other hand, Pursuit of Happyness is faltering, outside of PGA or DGA support I don’t see it generating as legitimage an oscar shot as Babel has, which is a damn shame. the stone-hearted critics will rip the movie to shreds but audiences will embrace it, and the academy is just as much ‘audience’ as they are ‘critics’. I was half hoping Pursuit would pick up the ‘Globes are strange’ nod that Bobby received, the film definitely would have benefitted from it.
I love the Dreamgirls spin, Rox.
I know that Crash is a loooong time ago, but really! And in the same sentence as noting Cold Mountain.
The selection of relevence and irrelevance always amazes me.
http://www.incontention.com/blog/2006/12/globe_stat_of_the_day.html
LMS had two noms too. I wonder is there is not going to be a backlash within the actors’s branch or the SAGs with the Supporting Actor list. I the fact that the Vet (Alan), The Breakthough (Sheen), or The Child Star Comeback (Jackie) went 0-3 might not play well.
I made the effort last weekend to get to the one screen in town left with Babel. The movie is well-made, very cerebral, but needlessly complex. And perhaps it was made with good intentions, but it reeks of pretension.
It sounds like I disliked it, which I definitely did not. But it’s not one of the five best movies of the year.
What does Naomi Watts need to do to get a GG nomination? She got one for 21 Grams but the HFPA couldn’t afford to bag her that year. But nothing for Mulholland Drive, King Kong or The Painted Veil.
Is it Naomi? Her films? I can’t figure it out.
NOTHING for Children of Men?!?! How disappointing!!!
But am relieved to see some Babel love…
Helen Mirren has three acting noms… what are her chances of winining in both categories?
Further proof that a Golden Globe nomination can be bought. It’s rare for me to agree with Dave Poland but Bobby is the year’s most embarrassing film yet Harvey gets what Harvey wants. I was suprised, though pleased, by the Sharon Stone omission. Did she forget to send out expensive watches to the HFPA this year?
And where the heck is Ryan Gosling’s nod?
DAVID, be fair here. You dont like Babel – so you report it as being an underdog. Yet AFI, NBR, BFCA and now the HFPA are telling us THEY LIKE BABEL. Doesnt majority rule mean anything to you? Me thinks you might want to recognize that your own personal bias is getting in the way of accurate reporting. Shame on you!
I am just a guy who likes to watch movies and follows the industry from a Wall Street perspective. I’ve only been around this blog for a year or so and have not ever witnessed the run-up to Oscar before.
That said, I’ll offer that it seems like a muddled year from what you all are saying and I think that is because none of the films are that good. At least by historical standards. For example, I watched City of God last night. I think that is a great film. Far better than anything on the list this year that I have seen (I have not seen Letters). Of the others, speaking as just some guy who goes to the movies and watches the Oscars, I enjoyed The Departed better than anything else I saw this year.
Um, I thought David liked Babel.
United 93, Children of Men and The Good Shepherd all snubbed. Maybe Universal could have sent out a few more screeners.
And Pursuit of Happyness also received two nods for Actor and Song.
David does like Babel.
And David knows – as he keeps screaming – that majority DOESN’T rule.
Academy members are Academy members. Everyone else is everyone else.
David is pleased that Babel has done well. But talking to Academy members, the problem remains the problem… too harsh. Maybe they will turn the corner. Maybe not. But they are still a serious underdog at this point.
The Globes are one place that screeners mean very little. They get to sit on George/Clive/Greengrass’ lap.
And now, David will stop talking in third person.
Thanks for the correction, EC
Gosh David – Depp is a fine actor, so stop calling his nom a “beggar’s nom”….to my knowledge, he has never campaigned for any award and doesn’t need validation by any group except the public.
I couldn’t see “Devil Wears Prada” until the DVD came out day before yesterday.
I knew going in that Streep would be amazing, but what I didn’t expect was how good Emily Blunt was going to be. She gives a great supporting performance, and it’s good to see that she got a nomination for it.
The double nomination for Eastwood should result in a win for Scorcese and set him up for a possible Oscar win. The double nomination for DiCaprio is problematic for any Oscar nomination. “Bobby” a better movie than “United 93?” That’s the glaring nomination that will hurt the credibility of these awards. I must admit a bias is taking joy in “Babel” leading the nominations in terms of numbers.
i’m not so surprised about the Globes’ snub of U93 as i am about the fact that they passed over WORLD TRADE CENTER. it had the “importance,” the stars and the bigger box office. you know, i love movies, but i’m getting so sick of the plethora of awards. the critic kudos are interesting, but the rest are just noise. i’m going to concentrate on the Oscars. they can be screwed up as well, but at least they are (for better or worse) the gold standard.
Not calling Depp a beggar, Sandy… it is the HFPA begging him to show up at their TV show…
one more thing…
BABEL’s nom number is nice, but not indicative of anything. COLD MTN was the leader in it’s year, as was GODFATHER THREE.
Tapley,
thanks for the link to the incontention.com Blog. I’m glad to discover there are a seemingly endless number of places to post their insane award season ramblings. I mean, i realize that people have different opinions on film, but to call The Devil Wears Prada “The Worst Film of 2006” proves that you’re little more than another jackass painting with broad strokes, making reactionary statements in order to illicit a response, much like this one.
Congratulations on joining the ranks of bitter internet film ‘journalists’. You can never have too many.
it should also be brought up that movies are supposed to be fun or at least an enjoyable experience. Munich and Brokeback Mountain were at the very top of my list last year, but I haven’t rewatched them, the films I’ve rewatched, Family Stone, Mrs. Henderson Presents are the ones I have most wanted to rewatch. I just watch Joyeaux Noel last night, and I already want to rewatch it.
So I’m thinking this year at the oscars there could be a backlash against ‘important’ films that so dominated the awards last year. So I am agreeing with David that Babel and United 93 have a very difficult path to follow.
Frankly, I was astonished that David’s kept Pursuit of Happyness as a legitimate pick, that’s been my ‘I’m crazy but something about it feels right’ pick for several months now, and it’s exactly the sort of film that could benefit from a backlash this year.
Last year was an exceptionally dour year for oscar, all the films were ‘Important’ and ‘good-for-you’. This year, we have three films that are superbly entertaining fun experiences to see–Dreamgirls, The Departed, Little Miss Sunshine. That entertaining/satisfying-film-experience is a factor I think a lot of oscar prognosticators want to forget about, but it’s why films like Dances with Wolves, Forrest Gump, Gladiator win best picture–despite critics jumping up and down screaming that the picture was awful (sometimes they scream because the picture IS entertaining, in my opinion).
As Dave said, the Academy is the Academy. They’re professionals, so they have a critical eye towards filmmaking, but they’re also much closer to a popular audience than an insulated critic watching movies at 10 AM in a screening room without ‘distractions’ ala Rex Reed in “Lost in America”. And I think it’s because the academy is rarely at the extremes of populist or critical-darling choices that they get so much derision online from all sides. Apparently, everyone hates a moderate.
Eric, how is Babel “needlessly complex?” I found it to be rather straight-forward in its storytelling and theme.
Speaking of Roger Friedman, here is a quote from his column of a few days ago…
—————-
Clint Eastwood
anghus: Sorry to crap on your apparent #1 film ever, but, you know…opinions. Assholes. The old addage.
A jackass? Did you really call me a jackass for calling something the worst film of the year and then backing it up?
Those comments say more about you than they do about me, that’s for sure.
Kisses.
I found The Devil Wears Prada to be fairly mediocre (Streep and Tucci great, everything else not so much), but the absolute worst film of 2006? That is a stretch. I’ve seen worse films this week.
I enjoyed Prada quite a bit (especially Streep). I’m also perversely attracted to Anne Hathaway, so that helps. Can’t see it was a “worst of 2006” candidate, by any means.
But different strokes for different strokes… how can anybody have a “wrong” opinion about a movie? If KT hated it, he hated it. Who cares?
Folks…
Why is it I can’t proofread a two-line post before hitting Send???
Hey, I don’t care. Just find it hard to believe that he hasn’t seen a movie in 2006 that is worse than Devil Wears Prada. I would be quite a happy camper if that was the worst movie I saw this year.
OK, I’ll ask if no one else won’t: If the Golden Globes mean nothing, does that mean the BFCA Critics’ Choice awards mean less than nothing (because they’re not going to have a big network TV showcase this year)? Or would it would more accurate to say that the Golden Globes are VERY important — indeed, more important than anything short of the Oscars themselves — simply because they have a big network TV showcase? (I know: Circular reasoning. But there you go.)
Stella, i’m with you. His idiotic comments and idiotic follow up just proves that this is a guy who runs a site that is the award season equivilent of PerezHilton.com
Stupid, baseless statements designed to do nothing more than stir the pot.
For the record, i dont think Prada is anywhere near my #1 for the year. But after perusing your sham of a site, i shouldn’t expect anything resembling a well founded comment.
So contentious!
I would think that anyone here has read enough Oscar bloggers to know that the following maxim holds true: early awards and nominations mean nothing, are irrelevant, etc. — except when they support your thesis.
I think the question is, do people (as in general audiences), go see movies because they are nominated for or win Golden Globes? If so, they’re important.
Nobody sees a film because it wins the NY Film Critics award. But I could see the Globes having an impact simply because of their high profile.
Joe, quite frankly I don’t believe any of it’s important to ANYONE outside of the movie community.
I hadn’t heard of 9/10 of these awards committees etc before hanging out down here so… and I’d say that’s probably true for the majority of the public.
But it sure as hell all makes for some amusing discussions around here! ;o)
Anghus, stop plowing into Kris just because you didn’t like his opinion of a movie you (and I) enjoyed!
Everyone’s entitled to their opinions, and Kris is brave enough to lay his out for all to see on his v. well structured website! If you’d spent any time there at all you’d have realised that there are some very interesting articles to be read on the films themselves (wether you agree with his or Gerard’s opinion or not – I still don’t get what grated you about HF Kris – they often present excellent arguments to back up their viewpoint) or their technical aspects that are very well written and usually insightful. Plus a chance for people to discuss it all.
Mel: I think that sums it up, really. Whatever you think of the Golden Globes or the people who vote for them, they have a higher profile and therefore greater significance than anything short of the Oscars. I am not arguing that this is a good thing. I am merely stating that it is so.
crazycris,
i don’t reward people because they ‘lay his out for all the world to see’. There has to be some validity to the argument.
First impressions say a lot cris, so when the first thing i see is ‘The Devil Wears Prada is the worst film of 2006’, it becomes difficult to take his site, or anything he says seriously.
I’ll stick with MCN.
The weirdest category in any award show has to be the GG television supporting category — lumping actors from miniseries, movies, and series against each other, when the lead actors are separated not only by format (series/movie&mini) but also by genre for regular series (comedy/drama).
It’s just bizarre, IMO, to have these five guys competing against each other:
Thomas Haden Church, Broken Trail
Jeremy Irons, Elizabeth I
Justin Kirk, Weeds
Masi Oka, Heroes
Jeremy Piven, Entourage
And once again, comedies are going to get skunked when DREAMGIRLS wins. I’m really fed up with the “Comedy or Musical” designation.
And I know it’s TV, but I’m really pissed that STUDIO 60 only got a single nod, for Sarah Paulson. Probably too complex for their feeble, cheap-champagne-addled minds to wrap around.
But as you say–it means nothing.
Emily Blunt actually got a 2nd nomination in TV supporting actress (for some TV movie). I hadn’t noticed that.
Melquiades, I said Babel is needlessly complex because I didn’t think the movie benefited from its non-linear structure. Taken as a whole I thought it distracted from the story more than it helped.
It’s a technique that can be powerfully used– I loved The Prestige— but I just didn’t think it was necessary in Babel.
For those trying to decipher meaning or getting worked up over this, try chanting this little mantra a few times:
“HFP are mostly star fuckers, HFP are mostly star fuckers, HFP are mostly star fuckers…”
As was pointed out in a great little documentary that ran on IFC (I think) a few years ago, they nominate people who they want to show up for the awards. Ask yourself if BABEL would have rated a nom if Pitt and Blanchet were not in it – not on your life.
These days, the only awards show that is worth watching for both films it promotes and the honest emotions it shows in the winners is the Indy Spirit Awards. Watch it and see if that old cliche about “you’ll laugh, you’ll cry” doesn’t ring true.
I’ll take BOBBY over UNITED 93 any day…while BOBBY isn’t a great film, the final act montage was perfectly conceived and had me in tears…Emilio using RFK’s speech about MLK’s death over RFK’s own death was the coolest “concept” thing I saw in films this year…
UNITED 93 is just overrated as could be by so many on this board…dull dull dull…
anghus…get a grip
TALKING ABOUT SNUBS!!! how about a nomination for Bill Condon? not many directors would even put their hat in the ring to attempt to direct a musical – AND THIS MAN HAS MASTERED IT! i can’t imagine dealing with all those egos day in and day out (Jamie, Eddie, Beyonce, not 1 but 2 studios!!) and how about the performances he got out of new comers Jennifer Hudson and Anika (although she is broadway trained). THE MAN IS A GENIUS!
i can’t believe clint has 2 nominations and that martin is even nominated – come on folks, marty has made MANY better pictures than The Departed!!! please don’t give the man a “sorry you’ve never won” award – marty wouldn’t want your sympathy vote!!
If the HFPA are all Star F’ers, please explain to me why they nominated Adriana Barazza AND Rinko Kikuchi in the Best Supporting Actress category?
I mean, who’s heard of these women before? They arent stars!
Why not go with Sharon Stone, Catherine O’Hara, Emma Thompson or Vera Farmiga for Christs sake. You people really are a bunch of silly whiners.
I just wanted to add that I think Devil Wears Prada – the movie itself – is overrated. Although the performances from Streep and Blunt are excellent.
COLD MOUNTAIN comparison to BABEL is just lame! In the last 10 years, 8 of the films that got the most GG noms also went on to get nominated for best picture. Only twice in ten years has this not happened so – DO THE MATH – 80% of the time, the GG picture with the most noms (i.e. in this case BABEL) goes on to get an Oscar nom for Best Pic.
On the side note, COLD MOUNTAIN doesn’t in AFI top 10 list in 2003
http://www.listsofbests.com/list/6618
However, David knows many information that many people don’t know, so I think his word is actually a bad sign for BABEL
Oh yeah, shouldn’t the COLD MOUNTAIN situation be compared more with BOBBY getting a Best Drama nomination in terms of the Globes bending over for Harvey Weinstein?
It seems like BABEL is in good shape for that fifth Oscar spot.
Tapley
ok, calling your site the PerezHilton.com of Award sites might be a bit harsh. I went back to give your site a second chance, but then i read this sentence.
“Veterans bring a unique presence to the race, often representing the old guard in their fields and always representing those who have gone through this process before.”
I’ve read it a half dozen times and i’m still baffled by it. It reminded me of a Simpsons episode where Homer was given the “C. Montgomery Burns Award For Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence .”
If Veterans only ‘often’ represent the old guard, who is representing them the rest of the time?
Now you’re just nitpicking.
Jeff: Er, no offense, friend, but for you of all people to accuse someone else of “nitpicking” when it comes to real or perceived grammar errors… well, as I was saying last summer… LOL.
Eric, not sure if you’re still monitoring this thread, but there really wasn’t much non-linear storytelling in Babel.
The only instance I can think of is that the Mexican storyline begins after the Morocco storyline has ended, yet we watch them unfold simultaneously. That is necessary unless the Mexican storyline is going to be told in its entirety after the other two. In order to show all three stories together, the filmmakers had to show us events happening in Mexico a day after the other events.
But even that little time-shift is practically transparent. Only the phone call from Pitt clues us in that the events take place later. It’s far from confusing.
Ah, but Joe, the difference is that Wells is a jerk and I don’t think that Kris is.
Either supposition is debatable. But I have to add that two PhDs I consulted regarding the “last summer” issue (no kidding) said Jeff was correct. I don’t think they’d be so forgiving of Kris. Not that it matters, of course. Unless we’re nitpicking.
Far from confusing for sure regarding Babel’s story structure. I think it’s a flawless film, technically speaking. The performances are all top notch. Yet, I can’t actually defend the film. I didn’t hate it, nor did I like it. I don’t know. It’s just one of those things I guess. Anyhow, good for it doing so well with the nominations.
Glad to see Clint Mansell’s beautiful score get some love. Hopefully it keeps getting love all the way until Oscar nominations. I don’t think it would win an Oscar, but I can hope it will. It’d be nice to see Clint on that particular red carpet. I think he’ll bag one eventually.
Too bad the Academy has their rules about foreign language films, cos that list would be rad for Oscar night.
And Emily Blunt, yum! 😀
I’m not saying I was confused by it, I’m saying it was unnecessary. The plot could easily have been adjusted slightly to make the events occur linearly.
What I’m getting at is that there should be a reason to tell a story with such an atypical structure, but that Babel did not have one. It was as though I
Re: Babel, I don’t think the film’s major problem is ‘why did these stories have to be told in this manner’ but ‘why did some of these stories have to be told at all’. As interesting as the Japanese story is, the connection it has to the rest of the movie is very contrived, and thematically pretty tenuous. The Mexican story is even worse – it’s not about a cultural or language barrier issue, it’s about a drunken jerk issue.
Jeff, that was one of my nitpicks.
I heart anghus.
If we want to get down and dirty, you could try reading the sentence the way it was intended to be read. As in, veterans representing the old guard is an occurence that “often” happens in the tech categories, not veterans are the ones that “often” represent the old guard.
Or you could direct any concerns to the article’s author, Gerard Kennedy (gkennedy@incontention.com). I’m sure he’d be willing to walk you through it.
Kris, I read that sentence as it was written and it’s nonsense. The way a sentence is “meant” is pointless, since we’re just reading the sentence, not the author’s mind.
Take that with a grain of salt, as I am new to the Oscar game.
Where the f*** is Ryan Gosling? That was the best performance of the year, no doubt about it. I hate how all of the “experts” always have him right outside the top 5 most likely to get nominated, yet I haven’t spoken to anyone who didn’t think he was absolutley fantatstic, regardless of what they thought of Half Nelson, (which was generally well regarded anyhow).
Just saw Little Children yesterday, and I have to say it’s my new fave movie of the year. It was just a perfect little movie. I’m happy about Emily Blunt’s nod for Prada–she was pitch-perfect in her supporting role. I wonder what that does to that category Oscar-wise?
I think the dual nominations in a single category is pretty crappy though–they should establish a rule against that sort of thing happening like they did with the Oscars.
Joe –
I don’t know when you think I – and I assume your continued BFCA sniping is pointed at me – said BFCA was so important. What I have said in the past – the last couple of years – is that it is a more accurate indicator of The Academy’s taste. And I think that holds.
This is, I think, a result of middlebrow taste in the group and a 180+ member base, which makes whims of a small group of members less empowered.
(And of course, the power of The Oscar is, I feel, 6000 established members of the community voting… no matter how much I might personally disagree with their choices most years.)
But again, the reason HFPA’s TV show, lovely though it is, doesn’t mean much is (in part) that:
1. It gives out awards AFTER Oscar nominations are locked, so it can’t influence them with wins
2. By nominating so early in the season compared to the Oscars, it doesn’t get the kind of perspective that Oscar voters get… the next three weeks of just watching films during off time and not dealing with the endless hype
3. The wins highlighting a performance or film, but again, a few days later, the Oscar finals are set and that starts a whole new race where none of the other groups have as much influence because Academy members can see the narrowed field clearly.
BFCA is – especially now – deballed. Very little juice at all on E!, tape delayed by a week. The marketing value is minimal.
And there was time when HFPA did matter a lot more… but the earlier Oscar date has stopped the feel of The Globes being a primary. And after a 5 year (or so) window where there seemed to be some influence, we have had a few years in a row where there is no real evidence of any influence at all.
Devin,
Maybe Kris is right. Why bother with how an article reads? As long as the thought behind it makes sense, and the author and the editor are happy, who gives a damn about the readers.
incontention.com – unpossibley the gratest website since PerezHilton.com
Whew…
Excuse me, David, but once again you — not me, you — have defined BFCA solely in terms of its ability to predict Oscar nominees. In other words, it has no value unto itself. That is rather sad, don’t you think? Also, you seem to be more critical of the organization than I have ever been. Consider: You were the one who dismissed most of the members merely as “junketeers.” (Do you mean a significant number of members are NOT film critics, per se? Do you mean the very name of the group is a fraud? Gosh, that might interest the FCC, don’t you think?) I actually have defended the BFCAers by saying that, yes, because of thier scattered membership, they have every right to depend upon screeners.
P.S. to David: I know we’re all thinking about Oscar movies right now, but I hope you rememeber to push “Behind the Mask” — the movie you championed, and I foolishly missed — at SXSW last spring. It’s supposed to get some theatrical play in February.
i’ll probably get kicked off this board, but i want to comment on the film guardian piece on older directors…
surely, Clint is doing amazing work at 76, but some others not mentioned are still shocking and awe-ing.
namely, Mike Nichols, who made his masterwork ANGELS IN AMERICA at 74. also, looking forward to 70something Milos Forman’s GOYA’S GHOSTS.
You could add Sidney Lumet to that list as well.
BTW: Today on my blog, I mention that Arthur Penn is getting a Golden Bear lifetime achievement award at the Berlin Film Festival. Which is very nice, and certainly just, but I can’t help wondering: Why isn’t he still making films?