Globes
What can one say about The Golden Globes than True Grit, 0 nominations, The Tourist, 3 nominations?
How badly do you want to have Johnny Depp show up that you need to to nominate him twice? (Disney lands its first non-animated Best Picture nominee since Mary Poppins, 45 years ago.)
You have to wonder what The Coen Bros did to HFPA at their press conference session.
And the Michael Douglas nomination, with due respect, is about his illness, not his performance. They want the television moment.
I don’t really have much more to say. There are nods I fully embrace, those I would have preferred, and those about which I am indifferent. But who cares? Dick Clark says you do.
The problem isn’t being nominated. It’s not being nominated. And then, only because you are out of that part of the conversation for a while. The only person whose nomination for a Globe really matters in terms of Oscar – which is the only reason HFPA has any power – is Jacki Weaver, whose Oscar stock just rose because she’s that deep in the conversation.
If you add up all the money spent on HFPA members, plus their personal membership benefits, they make more money each year being HFPA members than most journalists earn… and I would bet, in 80% or more of their membership, more than they personally make in any other endeavor.
Of course, the irony about ubiquitous bribery is that it gets to the point where the person being paid off has more power than the person paying them off… and then, it’s all about who ISN’T paying or how big the pay off. There is no issue of actual value, only the fear of having been told, “No.”
Proud moments.
Lordy, how I laughed.
The Tourist?
How about this for a conspiracy? The Coens are out to prove once and for all that the Globes count for zip when it comes to the Oscars. O noms here, probably a boatload of them come January.
RE TRUE GRIT: So is it a case of Rudin and Paramount not wanting to bribe mixed with the Coens not kissing ass during the press conf, or, even more egregiously, did the HFPA, in their mad New Hampshire primary-inspired race to stay relevant and trump the Oscars by continually moving the starting line ever earlier, close their balloting before they even got a chance to see it?
Personally, I think it’s beyond bribes at this point. The show itself, and the revenue it generates, IS the bribe. They give noms based on hoped-for celebrity turnout, which means a more star-studded show, thus better ratings, and, ultimately, a more lucrative network renegotiation (which is the real pot of gold at the end of the rainbow).
The biggest non-Depp howler is on the TV side – Jennifer Love Hewitt for Lifetime’s insta-camp classic The Client List.
To some degree, Shill… but like most con artists, the take away is a big part of the repertoire. They want to get paid off at every level. (Ironically, they use most of the same strong arming techniques a certain blogger uses daily.)
DP: If you’re going to insinuate something nefarious about Glen Kenny, why not just come right out and say it? đ
I must not have been paying any attention to the tourist at all. I was shocked to learn its a comedy!!!
Merci beaucoup pour les eclaircissements ! đ
But David,look at it this way: “Easy A” got some Golden Globe love. That counts for something, doesn’t it?
BTW: The “Comedy” and “Drama” designations strike me as being a tad bit loopier than usual this year. I mean, I laughed during parts of “Casino Jack,” but…
The odd thing about the TRUE GRIT snub is that the Hollywood Foreign Press were the first to see the film. Regular press screenings were much later for it.
Actually, HFPA wasn’t the first to see it… and that became part of the public record because certain writers can’t just shut up and see the movie when they see it. Early screenings were written about 4 or 5 days before HFPA got to it. Maybe that’s what pissed them off. Maybe Matt Damon not coming west to kiss their asses. Not sure.
And of all the HFPA stuff, Casino Jack and The Tourist being in Comedy are not bothersome to me. However, not allowing Get Low into Comedy when those were in Comedy makes little sense to me.
But the problem of the Emma Stone nomination, Joe, is that it reminds us that “Easy A” should have been nominated in the Comedy category long before three of the others.
Easy A does seem to have been hosed. 87% at RT and just under $60 million at the box office.
Re: comedies, what about Cyrus and the great Please Give? How did John C. Reilly not get a nomination?
Listing Alice in Wonderland as a comedy is a stretch.
Listing Alice in Wonderland as anything other than one of the worst movies of the year is downright insane.
I’ve defended the globes in the past given their willingness to acknowledge comedies and foriegn films, but this is dreadful. Is Toy Story inelligible to compete in the comedy category?
Hey, I just realized: This is another group that passed over Robert Duvall for “Get Low.” Again I respond: WTF?
And in what universe is Depp a lead actor in ALICE?
It’s time to kill the separate divisions for comedy and drama. I’ve always believed in this format, but when exactly zero of the five nominees is a bona fide comedy, merely dramas with some light relief, it’s time to slap on the toe tag. And when Rachel McAdams, who gave maybe the best female lead performance of any stripe this year, is denied a nom, it’s clear they are clueless about what a comedy actually is.
The LA Times blog says True Grit wasn’t well received at an HFPA screening, and that historically westerns aren’t frequently nominated at the Globes.
“And when Rachel McAdams, who gave maybe the best female lead performance of any stripe this year…”
VAUDEVILLE LEVEL SPIT TAKE ALERT.
YOU. ARE. IN. SANE.
You can’t have it both ways. A GG nom can’t be great if it fits your little box of “good movie” and then call it a joke if a nom isn’t to your liking. The whole world doesn’t live by what is said on Rotten Tomatos. I do not depend on critics to choose my movies.
Wait, Lex: You didn’t like Rachel McAdams in Morning Glory? Even with all those shots of her bare feet?
I loved McAdams and liked the movie for what it was.
But saying it’s a better “performance of any stripe”– which would suggest comedy AND DRAMA– than Portman, Anne Hathaway, Amy Adams (though she might be considered supporting), Julianne Moore, Chloe Moretz, Carey Mulligan or Kristen Stewart seems a bit of a stretch. And even though I’ll probably not see it, throw in that Lesley Manville too.
What’s truly sad is that a better crop of nominees could have been cobbled together by simply polling Entertainment Weekly readers. Sure EW readers would have still nominated Depp for something, but then again, they probably would have also given Michael Douglas’s slot to someone like, say, Tom Hardy, which although not perfect, wouldn’t have felt so cheap.
I mean, that’s really it, isn’t it? The HFPA has shown through their whoring that they’re no better than the MTV or People’s Choice awards. How sad to see people so dedicated to film, having built such a great public platform to promote good cinema, waste it.
every year when the Globes come out, i hear this voice in my head. An incredibly fopish English accent that comes in at the end of the name saying
YOU HUGE, AMAZING MOVIE STAR…..
because that really is the Globes. BIG HUGE MOVIE STARS!
When i heard Depp and Jolie for the Tourist, i just sat there dumbfounded. The content of the film doesn’t matter. Can anyone even make a serious argument to the contrary?
They “cheat” a little by having so many nominees per category and they have nowhere near the platform that the Globes do, but I consistently find the nominees for the HFPA protest group’s Satellite Awards to be a lot more interesting than the Globes. http://www.pressacademy.com/NominationsRelease.pdf
I dont begrudge Michael Douglas his moment.
For all their whorish tendencies I’m still surprised they didn’t give one of Depp’s nominations to Robert Downey Jr. in Due Date.
Though if they wanted to give Michael Douglas, they could have nominated him for Solitary Man instead.
What djk813 said.
Overlooking the fact that being called insane by Lex is like being called effeminate by Richard Simmons, I did qualify it with “maybe.” However, if you look at the actual work she did–she’s in virtually every scene; she holds her own against older, more experienced actors; she knows just how far to take her character without making her annoying; she is constantly in character, fully reacting and not just sitting there–yes, it is a truly great performance, despite the fact that it’s “just” a romantic farce. Everyone thinks that “drama” is a greater achievement than “comedy,” but ask any actor worth his or her salt which of the two is harder, and you know what the answer will be.
Disgaree about Douglas. Sort of. Yes, you’re probably right in that they factored the TV moment thing in but he totally deserved a nom this year. Just not in Wall Street 2. His Solitary Man turn is easily one of the top 5 of the year for me.
Cadavra: I haven’t seen MORNING GLORY yet, but as someone who thought Bridget Fonda was robbed of an Oscar nod for IT COULD HAPPEN TO YOU, I know where you’re coming from.
Kind of think it’s more surprising they restrained themselves from nominating Nicholson in “How Do You Know?”