Golden Globe Awards

For the films of 2014
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 2586
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Golden Globe Awards

Postby Greg » Mon Jan 12, 2015 6:57 pm

My favorite part of the show was the GE "Ideas Are Scary" ad, which is my favorite TV ad of anything I have seen recently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfmQvc6tB1o
"A presidency won over emails may end up lost over emails."

Ezra Klein

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15018
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Golden Globe Awards

Postby Big Magilla » Mon Jan 12, 2015 2:04 pm

I agree with Flipp. Keaton's heartfelt speech nails it for him. The naysayers have been complaining about his refusal to play the Oscar game, distancing himself from his character, saying "he's not me" when the narrative was supposed to be has-been actor playing has-been actor.

I like Redmayne, but I don't think he even gave the best performance by a lead actor from the British Isles this year. Cumberbatch acted circles around him in The Imitation Game and Brendan Gleeson, who probably won't be nominated, was better than both of them in Calvary. With Gleeson in the race, he's my pick, with him out, Keaton's my pick, followed by Cumberbatch and then Redmayne, Gyllenhaal and Oyelowo in that order.

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 5926
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Golden Globe Awards

Postby Mister Tee » Mon Jan 12, 2015 11:57 am

Because Rush's subsequent career has been a bit checkered, and because performances such as his are not so respected (especially around here), it may not be remembered that he was a Critical favorite -- winning both NY & LA, which constituted the bulk of early precursors then. Fiennes' performance was not singled out enough for The English Patient to carry him aloft, and Cruise was a late entry that made a respectable ballot-fill but would have been viewed as a lame choice for the win. Especially because Shine became-- by indie standards -- an enormous hit.

I'd thought Theory of Everything might become a big enough hit to similarly run away with the race, but, after a great start, it's stalled out a bit -- it's actually running about even with Birdman, though the latter is far less auduence-friendly. If Theory of Everything were getting Imitation Game's grosses, Redmayne might be unstoppable. And he's certainly still in the race, given voters' long-standing weakness for handicapped performances. But Keaton's career narrative, and his film's status in the overall field, makes it a pretty evenly matched battle.

Something from TV worth noting: last year, McConaughey was at least to some degree boosted by his True Detective performance (for me, easily his best work of the period), and was perhaps over-rewarded for Dallas Buyers; now, after the Emmys and this, it seems to me he's being under-rewarded for his truly outstanding work. There's something of two-wrongs-make-a-right in that.

Oh, and, OscarGuy: the Globes have long been far more ahead of the curve in judging TV work than movies. Even in the years they were Dances with Wolving and Forrest Gumping the best picture race, they were first to single out shows like The X-Files and Six Feet Under; they, unlike the Emmys, celebrated The Sopranos in its first year, not four years later. They've given Jon Hamm an award. I only wish over the years their movie choices had been as bold.

User avatar
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 5585
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: Golden Globe Awards

Postby flipp525 » Mon Jan 12, 2015 11:55 am

Was Eddie Redmayne still in "Stephen Hawking-mode" during his speech last night or is his posture always that hunched and scrunched over? He seemed to keep ducking further and further down as his speech progressed.

I have to believe that Michael Keaton's beautiful, heartfelt speech did a lot in swaying more voters his way for the big one. Redmayne winning the Oscar for that performance would be, well, let's just say that I'm with Italiano 100% this year on that one.
Last edited by flipp525 on Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell

FilmFan720
Tenured
Posts: 3365
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Golden Globe Awards

Postby FilmFan720 » Mon Jan 12, 2015 11:05 am

Cruise was still young, and I think the feeling was that he had a long career ahead of him and this wasn't the time to reward him. Plus, he was in a Romantic Comedy, which tends not to win Best Actor trophies (although Jack Nicholson the next year would prove that wrong). Fiennes was another brand-new to the scene actor (this is only 3 years removed from Schindler's List) and did not have nearly the showy role that Rush did. Both Cumberbatch and Keaton have a lot more going for them.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I always assumed Thornton came in second that year for Best Actor.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.

HarryGoldfarb
Assistant
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:50 pm
Location: Venezuela

Re: Golden Globe Awards

Postby HarryGoldfarb » Mon Jan 12, 2015 10:42 am

FilmFan720 wrote:
Rush, however, didn't have to compete with an "overdue" actor (Keaton) or another popular young actor in a movie that voters might like more (Cumberbatch).


That's debatable... Cruise and Fiennes were previous nominees (at that time, being a "loved" star, Cruise might have been considered already overdue, certainly more than Rush AND more than Keaton is this year) both in Best Picture nominees. Harrelson was indeed a popular young actor but TPVLF at the time of the nominations proved to be not as loved as Shine. Nonetheless, I get your point.

BTW... Rush won the GG in the Drama category, while "overdue", previous Oscar nominee AND Hollywood Star (at the time really loved by the industry) Cruise won in the Comedy category.
Life is painless for the brainless.
- Fiyero

mlrg
Adjunct
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Golden Globe Awards

Postby mlrg » Mon Jan 12, 2015 10:23 am

Well, Redmayne certainly fits in “likeable personality playing a real person with major handicaps in a movie that becomes a Best Picture nominee”.

For the record, I’m not defending that he should win as I haven’t seen the film yet.

FilmFan720
Tenured
Posts: 3365
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Golden Globe Awards

Postby FilmFan720 » Mon Jan 12, 2015 10:10 am

HarryGoldfarb wrote:
mlrg wrote:
ITALIANO wrote:
As for the Acting Oscars, two are by now sure things: Supporting Actor and Supporting Actress. Best Actress is, I'd say, almost sure - more because I don't see any strong alternative than because Moore is a great, admired performer, which she is but which often isn't enough. So the only suspense will be for Best Actor - only because I refuse to accept the idea that Eddie Redmayne CAN win an Oscar for THAT performance in THAT movie though... And because, in this case, there ARE alternatives. But let's be prepared for the worst...


Well, just take a look at Redmayne: he's british, starring in a biopic, playing a disabled, he's young, good looking and a rising star. He will win the BAFTA (SAG can go to Keaton). Statistically he has everything that goes to win best actor. There are also reports from the Golden gloges afterparties that everyone loves him.

Either there is a big game changer (like missing the nomination on Thursday) or smear campaign against him, I simply don't see him loosing, as of today.


I am not sure being young is a plus when you are an actor in the running for Best Actor at the Oscars. The mean age of the winners is actually around 44 y. Redmayne, at 33, would become one of the youngest winners ever (the 8th youngest to be exact) but he actually looks younger than he is. Cumberbatch, at 38 is closer to the mean age AND he looks more mature. I am not saying this is a definitive or decisive factor but I do not think being young is a good thing for Redmayne. The last under-35 years old to win Best Actor was precisely the youngest ever (Brody at 29), back in the 2002 race. Before him was Cage (1995) and before Cage was Day-Lewis in the 1989 race, both at 32 (one "young winner" per decade?). It is like when it comes to Actor, mature ones are favored in contrast to actresses.


I think the question is less about age and more about career longevity. Nicolas Cage had a fairly long career before his Oscar win, so he felt a lot more seasoned than a 32 year old actor. For some reason, in the Actor category, the Academy doesn't like to jump in an award someone who hasn't proven themselves over a period of time, as compared to Actress where they are more eager to award someone for their breakthrough performance.

A more interesting question would be when was the last time Best Actor went to someone who didn't have some sort of name recognition before...Jean Dujardin rode a Best Picture wave, Adrien Brody and Robert Benigni were both from films that proved to be much more popular than they seemed at first, even Forest Whitaker was a solid name around Hollywood. Geoffrey Rush might be our best comparison here (fairly unknown presence, but likeable personality playing a real person with major handicaps in a movie that becomes a Best Picture nominee). Rush, however, didn't have to compete with an "overdue" actor (Keaton) or another popular young actor in a movie that voters might like more (Cumberbatch).
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.

HarryGoldfarb
Assistant
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:50 pm
Location: Venezuela

Re: Golden Globe Awards

Postby HarryGoldfarb » Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:54 am

mlrg wrote:
ITALIANO wrote:
As for the Acting Oscars, two are by now sure things: Supporting Actor and Supporting Actress. Best Actress is, I'd say, almost sure - more because I don't see any strong alternative than because Moore is a great, admired performer, which she is but which often isn't enough. So the only suspense will be for Best Actor - only because I refuse to accept the idea that Eddie Redmayne CAN win an Oscar for THAT performance in THAT movie though... And because, in this case, there ARE alternatives. But let's be prepared for the worst...


Well, just take a look at Redmayne: he's british, starring in a biopic, playing a disabled, he's young, good looking and a rising star. He will win the BAFTA (SAG can go to Keaton). Statistically he has everything that goes to win best actor. There are also reports from the Golden gloges afterparties that everyone loves him.

Either there is a big game changer (like missing the nomination on Thursday) or smear campaign against him, I simply don't see him loosing, as of today.


I am not sure being young is a plus when you are an actor in the running for Best Actor at the Oscars. The mean age of the winners is actually around 44 y. Redmayne, at 33, would become one of the youngest winners ever (the 8th youngest to be exact) but he actually looks younger than he is. Cumberbatch, at 38 is closer to the mean age AND he looks more mature. I am not saying this is a definitive or decisive factor but I do not think being young is a good thing for Redmayne. The last under-35 years old to win Best Actor was precisely the youngest ever (Brody at 29), back in the 2002 race. Before him was Cage (1995) and before Cage was Day-Lewis in the 1989 race, both at 32 (one "young winner" per decade?). It is like when it comes to Actor, mature ones are favored in contrast to actresses.
Life is painless for the brainless.
- Fiyero

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: Golden Globe Awards

Postby ITALIANO » Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:38 am

mlrg wrote:
ITALIANO wrote:
As for the Acting Oscars, two are by now sure things: Supporting Actor and Supporting Actress. Best Actress is, I'd say, almost sure - more because I don't see any strong alternative than because Moore is a great, admired performer, which she is but which often isn't enough. So the only suspense will be for Best Actor - only because I refuse to accept the idea that Eddie Redmayne CAN win an Oscar for THAT performance in THAT movie though... And because, in this case, there ARE alternatives. But let's be prepared for the worst...


Well, just take a look at Redmayne: he's british, starring in a biopic, playing a disabled, he's young, good looking and a rising star. He will win the BAFTA (SAG can go to Keaton). Statistically he has everything that goes to win best actor. There are also reports from the Golden gloges afterparties that everyone loves him.




Yeah, I know... I'm not sure that he's good looking but he's "cute" in an unthreatening way, which, of course, can be an even better reason... He has all the factors a Best Actor winner should have except maybe two: his career, while certainly good, may not be perceived as one which should absolutely deserve an Oscar (this wouldn't be a problem for a woman but could be for a man), and the movie is really a minor one. But then it's true that both aren't unsurmountable obstacles...

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12287
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Golden Globe Awards

Postby OscarGuy » Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:36 am

I wonder. A year or two ago, I remember reading that the Globes made some major changes to their organization. I don't know whether it was restructuring or bringing in new members or something altogether different, but I wonder if the Globes were tired of being the laughing stock and were going to start shifting their perception. Perhaps this sticking-with-the-critics'-choices thing is their way of doing that.

I have been resistant to a Boyhood win for Best Picture simply because it's not the type of film I ever expected to do well with the Academy. Yet, here it is, steamrolling through the precursors at the very indie-unfriendly Globes. That it can win here either shows that Globe voters ARE trying to change their reputation or it really is speaking to voters in a surprising and daring way.

Note how much more surprising and forward-thinking the TV categories were in comparison. You have a show like Transparent winning two awards, The Affair winning two awards and none of the major Emmy favorites making headway with these voters. It's almost as if there are two different voter in the HFPA and they want to be daring with TV and milquetoast with the movies. This isn't the HFPA from the 1990's.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

mlrg
Adjunct
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Golden Globe Awards

Postby mlrg » Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:22 am

ITALIANO wrote:
As for the Acting Oscars, two are by now sure things: Supporting Actor and Supporting Actress. Best Actress is, I'd say, almost sure - more because I don't see any strong alternative than because Moore is a great, admired performer, which she is but which often isn't enough. So the only suspense will be for Best Actor - only because I refuse to accept the idea that Eddie Redmayne CAN win an Oscar for THAT performance in THAT movie though... And because, in this case, there ARE alternatives. But let's be prepared for the worst...


Well, just take a look at Redmayne: he's british, starring in a biopic, playing a disabled, he's young, good looking and a rising star. He will win the BAFTA (SAG can go to Keaton). Statistically he has everything that goes to win best actor. There are also reports from the Golden gloges afterparties that everyone loves him.

Either there is a big game changer (like missing the nomination on Thursday) or smear campaign against him, I simply don't see him loosing, as of today.

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: Golden Globe Awards

Postby ITALIANO » Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:05 am

It's still a bit too soon to say, but yes, if Boyhood - a not-too-conventional movie with a strong American "feel" about it - had to fail, it was here, and it didn't. This makes it now the official favorite for the Best Picture Academy Award. It's not a typical Oscar winning movie maybe, but then it's even less a typical Golden Globe-winning movie, and it's true that the Guilds could still change things - yet, then let's face it, there isn't a King's Speech in sight - you know, a conventional but respectable movie which can be a valid, reassuring but acceptable alternative. I thought this could be The Imitation Game, but after yesterday... And The Theory of Everything simply isn't a movie of Best-Picture caliber. (The Academy may even be too sophisticated to give it the two prizes it has just won here).

As for the Acting Oscars, two are by now sure things: Supporting Actor and Supporting Actress. Best Actress is, I'd say, almost sure - more because I don't see any strong alternative than because Moore is a great, admired performer, which she is but which often isn't enough. So the only suspense will be for Best Actor - only because I refuse to accept the idea that Eddie Redmayne CAN win an Oscar for THAT performance in THAT movie though... And because, in this case, there ARE alternatives. But let's be prepared for the worst...

mlrg
Adjunct
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Golden Globe Awards

Postby mlrg » Mon Jan 12, 2015 4:32 am

Interestingly enough I think the most competitive race will be best picture. I still don’t see Boyhood as a best picture winner.

In the acting races, Simmons (was it just me or he got minimal applause when he’s name was announced?), Arquette and Moore are almost locked winners and looking at Oscar history I would say Redmayne is also almost very much in the lead to win.

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 5926
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Golden Globe Awards

Postby Mister Tee » Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:19 am

To me, it was a night of MANY surprises. For the first half of the evening, I was wondering if it was possible for me to score in negative numbers. Things leveled off mostly toward the end, but there was still Grand Budapest, which seemed far less likely than Birdman (I assume that's why most of us predicted film/comedy and screenplay to go the exact opposite way).

Why I was so dubious about Boyhood's chances (here and, by extension, at the Oscars): To me, most Academy best picture winners fall within a fairly predictable range. Even some excellent choices of the past (The Godfather, Platoon, Schindler's List, even Silence of the Lambs) were broadly popular, strongly narrative films. There've only been a few films, over the half-decade I've been following, that leaped over those seeming boundaries to win best picture -- that were more artistically daring than the Oscars ever seemed likely to embrace: Midnight Cowboy, Annie Hall, The Deer Hunter, No Country for Old Men, The Hurt Locker. And not one of those won the Globe. For Boyhood (which definitely falls into that same not-your-father-'s-Oscar-winner category) to win here is pretty much unprecedented, and definitely bodes well for six weeks hence.

I always watch the Globes with a somewhat schizophrenic mind-set. Of course I'm happy when people/films I like win, but I'm simultaneously a bit disappointed if they appear to be yet again closing off the competition early. I had no doubt J.K. Simmons was a sweeper, but I really thought the other categories might give us a better ride. I much more enjoyed the years where the Globes made star-whore choices, SAG made popular-box-office choices, and we had to decide which (if either) of those choices would carry over to AMPAS. Now everyone (along with the odious BFCA) seems to want to play the exact same game, and it's taken a lot of the fun out of it. Best actor should remain competitive right to the end (the Globes having two categories helps keep things unsettled), but it's incredible how often these prelim awards have finalized the supporting awards in recent years,

Anyway...I loved Wes Anderson's speech; thought Keaton, Moore and Arquette gave especially moving orations; enjoyed Tina and Amy (though somewhere along the way I forgot they were hosting, with their too-long absence); thought Clooney handled his moment with typical class. The How to Train Your Dragon win seemed utterly random. "Glory" seems like it might be a way to give Selma some attention, and may be an easy repeater at the Oscars. Her win probably helps Amy Adams' hope of being the last nominee for best actress, but she's strictly filler this year, and I'd rather have seen Emily Blunt win something for a change (how quickly we forget: last year it seemed Amy would NEVER get to give a speech). And The Imitation Game -- whose booming box office (and that cinematographers' nod that so scared us the other day) seemed to make it a major threat -- took a huge hit.

Although, we might remember that The King's Speech did almost nothing at the Globes (or Broadcasters) and turned into the conquering hero at the Guilds. It may not be quite as over as it appears.


Return to “87th Predictions and Precursors”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest