Golden Globe reactions

For the films of 2013
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by Greg »

ITALIANO wrote:
Sabin wrote: The three old people are right. . .
We do. . .
You're old? I thought you were younger-middle-aged, or temporarily-not-aged.
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by ITALIANO »

Sabin wrote: The three old people are right. We don't need more words.
We do, but only when really needed. Unless of course you, Sabin, woke up every morning wondering: wait a moment, I am not a transexual I guess (let me check), so WHAT am I? What am I?
Now you know, Are you happier?
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by Sabin »

Mister Tee wrote
I have to admit, it strikes me as an unnecessary word -- there are transsexuals, and then the vast majority of the population who are not. I understand the desire to remove stigmatization by creating neutral terms like this, but Italiano is correct that it was that same impulse that created alot of the more easily mockable terms that made "political correctness" into a pejorative. (I remember the Village Voice, back in the 80s, briefly trying to describe all those without a disability as the Temporarily Abled Community)
Big Magilla wrote
I'm with Italiano on this one. I never heard the word "cisgendered" until I read it here. It sounds like they are referring to a cist that has to be removed.
Italiano wrote
2. That the Americans have invented a new word to obsessively categorize our sexuality - a terrible-sounding, and not much necessary, one: "cisgendered". Members of this board are already using it whenever they can, of course..!
The three old people are right. We don't need more words.

I can honestly say it never occurred to me that this response would happen. It's not offensive, but it's dumb, it's not funny, it's weird but not surprising. I feel like we need a new word. "Uaadbish".
"How's the despair?"
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by Mister Tee »

And, to get back on-topic, I agree as well that, even were Jennifer Lawrence to sweep the upcoming awards (which I frankly doubt she will -- BFCA will almost surely go with the pre-prescribed Nyong'o), I'd question Oscar voters wanting to give her a second trophy so soon and at such a young age.

Remember how Daniel Day-Lewis looked like a winner going into 2002's show? SAG had chosen him, but of course SAG hadn't existed in 1989 when he'd won his earlier Oscar. Voters in the end shied away from giving him a second trophy for Gangs of New York (though they got over their reluctance subsequently). A similar reticence may apply here.

I think either Nyong'o or Squibb are possible winners in lieu of Lawrence - though of course not till tomorrow will we be certain both are even nominees.
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by ITALIANO »

Mister Tee wrote:According to Wikipedia it's been around a while, but was essentially concocted out of thin air by a sociologist who wanted a neutral term for non-transsexual. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender

I have to admit, it strikes me as an unnecessary word -- there are transsexuals, and then the vast majority of the population who are not. I understand the desire to remove stigmatization by creating neutral terms like this, but Italiano is correct that it was that same impulse that created alot of the more easily mockable terms that made "political correctness" into a pejorative. (I remember the Village Voice, back in the 80s, briefly trying to describe all those without a disability as the Temporarily Abled Community)

It's possible that some of us are just terminally old, and that over time this expression will lose its jarring quality and become part of common expression. But from this juncture it feels like the kind of well-intentioned gesture whose seeming lack of plain speaking outweighs its worth as sensitivity.
Also, while I can vaguely understand the need of giving a term to any kind of sexuality, this "politically correct" (and not only American, it seems) obsession is frankly... exhausting. The need of categorizing sexuality isn't too distant, I'm afraid, from the need of controlling it, and control, especially when it comes to sex, is always wrong (I'm talking about sex, not violence of course). It makes it seem too much a "we" vs "them" kind of thing - it creates walls, barriers, rather than destroying them.

Plus, I don't know, but I've always seen sexuality in a much more fluid way, maybe because I've been to places where sexual behavior is often contradictory, changeable, transient. It's true that I don't live in the US or in Holland, but even in those countries I'm sure that sexual expressions are much richer and varied than the words they desperately try to apply to them.
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by flipp525 »

Mister Tee wrote:It's possible that some of us are just terminally old, and that over time this expression will lose its jarring quality and become part of common expression. But from this juncture it feels like the kind of well-intentioned gesture whose seeming lack of plain speaking outweighs its worth as sensitivity.
Frankly, I think you're just old. Why not have a word to describe a person who identifies with their born gender? In gender studies, it's very much a "thing" that's discussed. And it's not about being politically correct, it's about clarifying gender identification. Also, there are a lot of words that first arise out of "thin air." How else do you think that words are born? In a specially ordained birthing ceremony?

Italiano, I've had the same thought as you on Best Supporting Actress. JL can win every award up until that very night and I'll still be doubting her taking home the Oscar.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by ITALIANO »

ITALIANO wrote:I came to Prague from Berlin early afternoon on monday, and of course the first thing I did after the check in at my hotel was to connect here on my mobile through the wireless service, and know about the Golden Globes. I must say that this board never disappoints me. And no, it has nothing to do with the Globes. The two major surprises are:

1. That they are making The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel 2 - the least needed follow-up in the history of movies (and had that film been THAT successful?!).
2. That the Americans have invented a new word to obsessively categorize our sexuality - a terrible-sounding, and not much necessary, one: "cisgendered". Members of this board are already using it whenever they can, of course..!

A possible third surprise - this one Globes-related - had been spoiled already by my father, who had texted me about Sorrentino's win (this may be the first time ever that the Golden Globes make front-page news in Italy). And it WAS a surprise, at least for me. I knew that Blue is the Warmest Color was too extreme for these people, but I thought that The Great Beauty was - can I be honest? - too intelligent for them. And it IS a very intelligent movie - but intelligence can be a problem today, when we are used to movies which are too easy, too simple, movies which explain us everything, which spare us any (intellectual) energy. I guess that the fact that most of the HFPC is composed by Europeans probably helped - they may not be the smartest guys (and girls) around, but a certain kind of cinema is still, it seems, in their genes, or at least in their past.

What else? 12 Years a Slave may finally win Best Picture at the Oscars, but it will be, I feel, one of the least enthusiastic Best Picture wins ever - one of those (few) Oscar winners which are more appreciated than really loved by the Academy itself. Still, its message seems to be so strong (I havent seen it yet) that even these foreign journalists - who don't have anything to do with its subject - felt compelled to vote for it, though they clearly didn't much like anything else about it. It's very possible that Americans, especially Americans - for historical reasons closest to this issue, and in many ways still feeling guilty about it - will also go for it. The SAG will be interesting.

For other reasons too. Much has been made here of the fact that Ejiofor and Nyong'o both lost. And I can't deny that this confirms that Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress are THE acting races of the year. Yet, let's not forget that the Globes are mostly about stars. And like it or not, Matthew McConaughey IS a star, Chiwetel Ejiofor - even that name! - is, well, a nobody, for them. Don't get me wrong, I know that even by Oscar standards McConaughey is a big star playing against type (this often helps), and that Leonardo Di Caprio sooner or later MUST win an Oscar and this seems to be his showiest turn ever...

But, again, they are Americans - the Oscar voters I mean, or most of them. And frankly, I can't believe that a country which has just invented the word "cisgendered", which is so obsessed by the politically correct, in this year of 12 Years a Slave, The Butler and maybe other race-related movies too, will not have at least ONE black acting winner (this could, of course, also be Supporting Actress).

Except that, of course, the black winner might be in the Best Director category...
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by ITALIANO »

flipp525 wrote: On the Golden Globes: I also think that Best Supporting Actress is turning into one of the most WTF categories so far. Jennifer Lawrence conceivably winning another Oscar would seem to break the mold on several levels of predendent, I just can't see it happening. But, I mean, who else? I can't see them giving it to Julia Roberts even though I think her performance in August: Osage County might just be her best work. June Squibb? Seems like an also-ran. Very funny, but the nomination is her reward. Oprah? The Butler is practically forgotten. I think Lupita gives the strongest performance out of the group, but she doesn't seem to have gained the traction a lot of us thought she would at the beginning of the season and this is her debut performance (not a disqualifier for the Academy, of course, but there could be a, "Can she do anything else?" conversation in some circles). Whatever happens, this will be a nailbiter. The producers would be wise to leave the presentation of that award until at least an hour or so into the show given that Best Supporting Actor is less up in the air. Knowing them, however, they'll stupidly put it right up front.

Yes and what I find interesting is that even if Lawrence wins at the SAG, there will always be a part of me - and maybe of each of you, too - which will think: It can't happen at the Oscars, too. And then maybe it WILL happen, and it will make Oscar history (and one could say that worse things have happened at the Oscars in these last few years), but honestly, even if she wins EVERYTHING before the Oscars, despite this I will still hope that the Academy is A BIT different, that their award - the most important film award, still - will not go for the second consecutive year to a girl who was born the day before yesterday (and who, being so young, could be a three-time winner one, not too distant, day then). No, the Oscars can't do that... :D
Last edited by ITALIANO on Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by Mister Tee »

According to Wikipedia it's been around a while, but was essentially concocted out of thin air by a sociologist who wanted a neutral term for non-transsexual. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender

I have to admit, it strikes me as an unnecessary word -- there are transsexuals, and then the vast majority of the population who are not. I understand the desire to remove stigmatization by creating neutral terms like this, but Italiano is correct that it was that same impulse that created alot of the more easily mockable terms that made "political correctness" into a pejorative. (I remember the Village Voice, back in the 80s, briefly trying to describe all those without a disability as the Temporarily Abled Community)

It's possible that some of us are just terminally old, and that over time this expression will lose its jarring quality and become part of common expression. But from this juncture it feels like the kind of well-intentioned gesture whose seeming lack of plain speaking outweighs its worth as sensitivity.
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by flipp525 »

Just because you guys have never heard a word before, doesn't mean that it was coined yesterday. My god. As I said before, the word have been used in academia exhaustively since the mid-90's, particularly in queer theory and gender studies.

On the Golden Globes: I also think that Best Supporting Actress is turning into one of the most WTF categories so far. Jennifer Lawrence conceivably winning another Oscar would seem to break the mold on several levels of predendent, I just can't see it happening. But, I mean, who else? I can't see them giving it to Julia Roberts even though I think her performance in August: Osage County might just be her best work. June Squibb? Seems like an also-ran. Very funny, but the nomination is her reward. Oprah? The Butler is practically forgotten. I think Lupita gives the strongest performance out of the group, but she doesn't seem to have gained the traction a lot of us thought she would at the beginning of the season and this is her debut performance (not a disqualifier for the Academy, of course, but there could be a, "Can she do anything else?" conversation in some circles). Whatever happens, this will be a nailbiter. The producers would be wise to leave the presentation of that award until at least an hour or so into the show given that Best Supporting Actor is less up in the air. Knowing them, however, they'll stupidly put it right up front.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by ITALIANO »

Big Magilla wrote:I'm with Italiano on this one. I never heard the word "cisgendered" until I read it here. It sounds like they are referring to a cist that has to be removed.
Yes, it sounds terrible...
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by Big Magilla »

I'm with Italiano on this one. I never heard the word "cisgendered" until I read it here. It sounds like they are referring to a cist that has to be removed.
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by ITALIANO »

Oh a Dutch... I don't know why but I doubt that anyone in Amsterdam or in Rotterdam knows what it means (and I don't know either, exactly)...
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by flipp525 »

ITALIANO wrote:2. That the Americans have invented a new word to obsessively categorize our sexuality - a terrible-sounding, and not much necessary, one: "cisgendered". Members of this board are already using it whenever they can, of course..!
It's not a new word. It's been around since at least the mid-90's. And anyone who's familiar with queer and gender theory is already well familiar with it. Oh, and it was coined by a Dutch (not American) transsexual.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: Golden Globe reactions

Post by ITALIANO »

I came to Prague from Berlin early afternoon on monday, and of course the first thing I did after the check in at my hotel was to connect here on my mobile through the wireless service, and know about the Golden Globes. I must say that this board never disappoints me. And no, it has nothing to do with the Globes. The two major surprises are:

1. That they are making The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel 2 - the least needed follow-up in the history of movies (and had that film been THAT successful?!).
2. That the Americans have invented a new word to obsessively categorize our sexuality - a terrible-sounding, and not much necessary, one: "cisgendered". Members of this board are already using it whenever they can, of course..!

A possible third surprise - this one Globes-related - had been spoiled already by my father, who had texted me about Sorrentino's win (this may be the first time ever that the Golden Globes make front-page news in Italy). And it WAS a surprise, at least for me. I knew that Blue is the Warmest Color was too extreme for these people, but I thought that The Great Beauty was - can I be honest? - too intelligent for them. And it IS a very intelligent movie - but intelligence can be a problem today, when we are used to movies which are too easy, too simple, movies which explain us everything, which spare us any (intellectual) energy. I guess that the fact that most of the HFPC is composed by Europeans probably helped - they may not be the smartest guys (and girls) around, but a certain kind of cinema is still, it seems, in their genes, or at least in their past.

What else? 12 Years a Slave may finally win Best Picture at the Oscars, but it will be, I feel, one of the least enthusiastic Best Picture wins ever - one of those (few) Oscar winners which are more appreciated than really loved by the Academy itself. Still, its message seems to be so strong (I havent seen it yet) that even these foreign journalists - who don't have anything to do with its subject - felt compelled to vote for it, though they clearly didn't much like anything else about it. It's very possible that Americans, especially Americans - for historical reasons closest to this issue, and in many ways still feeling guilty about it - will also go for it. The SAG will be interesting.

For other reasons too. Much has been made here of the fact that Ejiofor and Nyong'o both lost. And I can't deny that this confirms that Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress are THE acting races of the year. Yet, let's not forget that the Globes are mostly about stars. And like it or not, Matthew McConaughey IS a star, Chiwetel Ejiofor - even that name! - is, well, a nobody, for them. Don't get me wrong, I know that even by Oscar standards McConaughey is a big star playing against type (this often helps), and that Leonardo Di Caprio sooner or later MUST win an Oscar and this seems to be his showiest turn ever...

But, again, they are Americans - the Oscar voters I mean, or most of them. And frankly, I can't believe that a country which has just invented the word "cisgendered", which is so obsessed by the politically correct, in this year of 12 Years a Slave, The Butler and maybe other race-related movies too, will not have at least ONE black acting winner (this could, of course, also be Supporting Actress).

Except that the black winner could be in the Best Director category...
Last edited by ITALIANO on Wed Jan 15, 2014 12:17 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Post Reply

Return to “86th Predictions and Precursors”