MCN Blogs
Kim Voynar

By Kim Voynar

And the Golden Globe Noms Are … Yawnnnn

So, the Golden Globe noms were announced this morning, not that anyone particularly cares. Although I find it kind of funny that entertainment journalists actually get up at the asscrack of dawn to “report” on the urgent news that the HFPA nominated Johnny Depp twice and The Tourist for anything. If every journalist who works in Hollywood would stop pretending the Globes are important as anything other than the Hollywood ass-kissing fest they are, maybe they would go away. Or maybe not. Hollywood does love any excuse to play dress-up, I guess.

I suppose writing about the Globe noms at noon at not breathlessly the Second! They are announced! as if I had been waiting with bated breath for weeks for this moment makes me a slacker, but so it goes. Ive been dealing with a very sick kiddo with a 103+ fever the past couple days, and that was just a bigger priority for me this morning than who the HFPA is baiting into showing up for their big bash.

Anyhow. A few things stand out for me in perusing the nominations. The True Grit snub is the biggest “news” of the noms, such as it is. Is it a reflection of the movie, or how the HFPA feels about the Coens? True Grit finally screens here in the Emerald City tonight, and I’m hoping to make the screening if I can break away from the sick room long enough to catch it. That one, The King’s Speech (which for some reason I missed at TIFF and still haven’t caught — I know, I know!) and the ever-diminishing pile of screeners at the foot of my bed are all I need to see to finish fine-tuning my Top Ten, which I don’t expect to have done until closer to the actual end of the year.

The Best Picture Globe noms are a real snoozer. Absolutely nothing on there that wasn’t predictable. I’m glad to see Jennifer Lawrence, Michelle Williams and Nicole Kidman nominated for Best Actress along with Natalie Portman for Black Swan.

I guess throwing The Kids Are All Right into the Comedy or Musical category (WTF?!) gave them some wiggle room to toss some bones around in Drama while not snubbing Bening or Moore, who are competing against each other in that category … and against Anne Hathaway for Love and Other Drugs and Angelina Jolie for The Tourist (again, WTF?). Are those noms anything other than “we want Hathway on the red carpet, and if we nominate Angelina maybe she’ll show up with Brad and more people will watch to see what they’re wearing!”? Blergh.

As for the Acting noms … look, I love me some Johnny Depp as much as the next girl (or guy, depending on how you swing), but c’mon, people. This was not the year of his best work, and he is surely smart enough to know that. If I was an actor of that level of talent getting nominated for mediocre work … I don’t know that I would show up and encourage anyone to think I actually thought those roles represented me giving my best effort to my craft. Just saying.

And I’m completely with David on the lack of recognition for Javier Bardem’s work in Biutiful, which for me was, along with Ryan Gosling’s turn in Blue Valentine, one of two really stand-out male performances of the year (so far, anyhow). Nice that they at least tossed a bone to the film in Best Foreign, I guess … wondering if the Academy will follow suit.

Nothing much to say on Best Animated for either the Globes or the inevitable very similar (if not exactly the same) Oscar noms when they come out, except that while I love Toy Story 3, for me The Illusionist is the better animated film. And that it’s highly unlikely that it will beat out the Power of Pixar at either the Globes or Oscar. The Illusionist, likely, will have to settle for the inevitable Honor of Being Nominated.

As for the Supporting noms … good for Jacki Weaver getting a boost, and Amy Adams and Melissa Leo … loved Mila Kunis in Black Swan, though. And on the guy’s side, I’d have rather seen Andrew Garfield nommed for his turn in Never Let Me Go than Social Network, but that was never gonna happen, and that one is likely to go to Michael Douglas anyhow, more as a nod to a career than for that particular performance.

The Coens being shut out of Director is a big deal of course, but so to me is the notable absence of Danny Boyle in that category, in spite of nods for 127 Hours in acting (for Franco) and screenwriting (Boyle/Beaufoy). Of the noms for Best Pic, Drama and Director, my personal picks would be either Black Swan/Aronofsky or Inception/Chris Nolan (with a slight leaning toward the latter, though I liked both of those films.

But the absence of the Coens and True Grit, for me — not to mention the complete shut-out of Mike Leigh and Another Year, and the noms for The Tourist and Jolie/Depp — makes whatever limited legitimacy the Globes might have carried even more questionable. So again, blergh.

Isn’t it Sundance yet?

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

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