Golden Globes

User avatar
ThePianist
Graduate
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:54 am

Re: Golden Globes

Postby ThePianist » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:51 am

Current Rankings/Predictions.

Final Ballots are mailed today, and we’re currently 20 days until the event.

Best Motion Picture (Drama)
1. The Post
2. Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
3. Dunkirk
4. Call Me by Your Name
5. The Shape of Water

Since this year has been batsh*t insane, I’m expecting a singular “Babel-esc” victory in this category for ‘The Post.’ Which also means ‘The Post’ will probably have no other wins during the season, whether it be BAFTA or any of the Guilds. Having this film win seems like a choice the HFPA would go with, considering It’s ‘press-based.’ And It’s also a big middle finger to Trump, which they would salivate at. Anything besides that or Three Billboards--which also has pretty good chances; is probably an unlikely possibility.

Best Motion Picture (Musical/Comedy)
1. Get Out
2. Lady Bird
3. The Disaster Artist
4. I, Tonya
5. The Greatest Showman

This has somehow become a bit dependent on the division of social issues, such as Race and Sexes. (At the very least, If you consider the inclusion of the Press and Social Media.) ‘Get Out’ has been the presumed frontrunner (even the “lock” according to some) for many months now. But It’s only competition in the form of ‘Lady Bird’, has definitely garnered some steam during the November-December period. However, coupled with the snub of director and screenplay, the category placement, plus the rumblings of the “race card” being thrown around; the backlash against the Globe’s treatment of the film might propel it to a victory. Granted, the same Director snub was delivered onto the aforementioned LB. And may I add, that both situations have gotten quite the same amount of backlash. The Globes will probably end up having ‘Get Out’ win this category, It’ll end up satisfying everyone. (LB will probably win ‘screenplay’ and 2 acting awards anyway.)

Best Actor in a Motion Picture (Drama)
1. Timothée Chalamet - Call Me by Your Name
2. Daniel Day-Lewis - Phantom Thread
3. Tom Hanks - The Post
4. Gary Oldman - Darkest Hour
5. Denzel Washington - Roman J. Israel, Esq.

I originally perceived Chalamet as the victor here. But I believe this “HFPA Beef” with Oldman might be a little overestimated by some. The only reason why I believe Hanks or Day Lewis could have a bigger shot of winning, is because Oldman is a sole nominee. The Globes have a tendency to give Best Actor to a film that has either a Best Director or Motion Picture nomination. Or at the very least, someone who has more than 1 nomination (in general) to their film--hence DDL. Members of the HFPA might split between Oldman and Chalamet, and could end up voting for a retiring Day Lewis. It really seems like anyone but Washington could end up taking this.

Best Actress in a Motion Picture (Drama)
1. Frances McDormand - Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
2. Sally Hawkins - The Shape of Water
3. Meryl Streep - The Post
4. Jessica Chastain - Molly’s Game
5. Michelle Williams - All the Money in the World

Don’t let the foolish and ridiculously biased ‘Stans’ on AW tell you different; because Streep is not winning this. She’s probably the most likely out of the 3 non-factors. The HFPA won’t hand it to her just because of ‘that speech’ she made at this year’s Globes. (And no, I don’t believe the #MeToo/Female Empowerment-esc movement that’s impacting the industry will help her here either.) The performances of the nominee’s retrospective films will triumph in this category, and It’s between McDormand and Hawkins. However, I’m putting my money on Frances McDormand, considering she’s never won a Globe yet (was snubbed for ‘Fargo’), also coupled with the industries support for Three Billboards; McDormand has quite the edge here. Also, Hawkins already won a Globe for ‘Happy-Go-Lucky’ several years ago. I believe Marge Gunderson has it here.

Best Actor in a Motion Picture (Musical/Comedy)
1. James Franco - The Disaster Artist
2. Daniel Kaluuya - Get Out
3. Hugh Jackman - The Greatest Showman
4. Steve Carell - Battle of the Sexes
5. Ansel Elgort - Baby Driver

Maybe this proclaimed ‘industry support’ Kaluuya has that AW has been talking about, could help him win this? But that’s probably one of their many overreactions (and Stan Agendas) to contenders. The only thing that can help Daniel win this, is probably the aforementioned backlash against the Globe’s treatment of the film. But Franco has this. Little doubt about it.

Best Actress in a Motion Picture (Musical/Comedy)
1. Saoirse Ronan - Lady Bird
2. Margot Robbie - I, Tonya
3. Judi Dench - Victoria & Abdul
4. Emma Stone - Battle of the Sexes
5. Helen Mirren - The Leisure Seeker

Robbie could surprise… but I believe Ronan has this. The support for 'Lady Bird' is too strong.

Best Supporting Actor in a Motion Picture
1. Sam Rockwell - Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
2. Willem Dafoe - The Florida Project
3. Christopher Plummer - All the Money in the World
4. Armie Hammer - Call Me by Your Name
5. Richard Jenkins - The Shape of Water

The Veteran Dafoe has taken NBR, NY, and LA In a surprise mini sweep. However, I’m taking a risk, in predicting that the path for Rockwell's Oscar begins here. Even if this supposed (and probably overestimated) backlash kicks up, the Academy will probably end up giving Rockwell the Oscar to reward the film. And the Globes will end up taking part in the formation of his frontrunner buzz.

Best Supporting Actress in a Motion Picture
1. Laurie Metcalf - Lady Bird
2. Allison Janney - I, Tonya
3. Hong Chau - Downsizing
4. Mary J. Blige - Mudbound
5. Octavia Spencer - The Shape of Water

I first thought that Janney was the sure fire frontrunner here, considering It seems like a very “Globes Thing” to do. But like I mentioned with Ronan, the support for Gerwig’s film is very strong. Metcalf is taking the Globe (in what I predict) is one of her 2 major precursor awards. Because I believe Janney takes the BAFTA, while Metcalf wins the Globe, SAG and Oscar. It’ll be yet another way for the Industry to award ‘Lady Bird.’

Best Director (Motion Picture)
1. Christopher Nolan - Dunkirk
2. Guillermo del Toro - The Shape of Water
3. Martin McDonagh - Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
4. Steven Spielberg - The Post
5. Ridley Scott - All The Money in the World

Del Toro has a good chance, and could end up with the BAFTA and DGA in his road to the Oscar. However, I believe Nolan wins here. It's between those 2 for the Director Awards, across the entire board. No doubt about it.

Best Screenplay (Motion Picture)
1. Lady Bird
2. Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
3. The Post
4. The Shape of Water
5. Molly’s Game

Since 3BB has a good chance to take the Drama Globe; I’m suspecting the support for ‘Lady Bird’ will help Greta Gerwig win screenplay here. No-one was expecting the backing that the HFPA gave Three Billboards, so who knows? 3BB could end up taking screenplay, with several other major awards. But for now, I’m betting my bottom dollar on LB taking this.

Reza
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 7915
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: Golden Globes

Postby Reza » Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:29 pm

Eenusch wrote:Yikes, and Oprah is being given the CB DeMille award.


Yikes, indeed, especially as Julie Andrews was in the running too.

http://www.goldderby.com/article/2017/o ... ress-news/

Eenusch
Graduate
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:21 am

Re: Golden Globes

Postby Eenusch » Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:25 pm

Yikes, and Oprah is being given the CB DeMille award.

User avatar
rolotomasi99
Associate
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: Golden Globes

Postby rolotomasi99 » Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:39 pm

Sabin wrote:Fourth...this 'Get Out' is not a comedy thing is ridiculous. Sure, it speaks to a very powerful truth, but it's a satire of a horror film. I can think of at least twenty films that were more absurdly mislabeled as comedies. The fact that Jordan Peele wasn't consulted before it was submitted is the bigger issue to me. But to be fair, I'm not sure if filmmakers are. When Jim Carrey accepted the Comedic/Musical Globe for 'Man on the Moon,' he said "I thought we were making a drama." And when Jack Nicholson accepted the Dramatic Globe for 'About Schmidt,' he said "I thought we were making a comedy." So, who knows...but should the filmmakers get a say in whether they made a comedy or drama? Yes.


I can understand someone disagreeing with which category their movie goes into (you gave two great examples), but I have been confused by why so many people (including, it seems, Jordan Peele) are insulted GET OUT was labeled a comedy, as if it were a lesser designation or it somehow cheapens the importance of the film's topic. Comedies are sometimes better adept at broaching difficult topics and encouraging audiences to see viewpoints they might not have previously considered. A great example of this is DR. STRANGELOVE and FAIL-SAFE. One is a dramatic film which is praised but not widely known while the other is a comedy which is considered one of the greatest films of all time. The comedy had not only a bigger cinematic impact but also garnered greater cultural and political influence than the drama ever could. Likewise, GET OUT did much better at the box-office and has had greater awards success than the various dramatic films tackling racism (DETROIT, MUDBOUND, MARSHALL). It just seems so odd for a man who became wealthy and famous from comedy to now disparage and distance himself from that genre.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3955
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: Golden Globes

Postby ITALIANO » Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:22 pm

Sabin wrote:
On the other hand, I thought FOR SURE #GoldenGlobeSoWhite was something you made up. Nope, it's a thing. That sucks.



I thought I had invented it..! :D

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7341
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Golden Globes

Postby Sabin » Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:15 pm

Italiano wrote
No, I don't support OscarSoWhite. And I will never support GoldenGlobesSoWhite. Awards, of any kind, are the result of something much more profound, and while for Americans they might be of the greatest importance, as a European but also as a human being my duty is to look at the origins of a problem, not at the surface of it. And the problem - which MUST be solved - is, of course, deeper, in many ways. I couldn't care less about privileged black actors complaining because they or their spouses haven't been nominated for an Oscar or for a Golden Globe. Their fight will never be mine.

Let me rephrase what I meant...I was agnostic about #OscarSoWhite at the time only because of the films in question ('Creed,' 'Beasts of No Nation,' and 'Straight Outta Compton'), which we don't need to go back into. But I am totally in support of what it led to. A systematic purging of old, inactive Academy voters every year, bringing in new internationally diverse members? Like Hou Hsiao-Hsien, or Jordan Peele? That's great. Couldn't be happier.

To address your point thought about "the origin of the problem?" Yeah, I agree. And I do agree that the #OscarSoWhite campaign was substantially more about the people giving out awards rather than inspiring people to tell more diverse stories. But two years after #OscarSoWhite and we're looking at what is likely to be not just the best lineup of movies the Academy has nominated in ages, but also with the most diverse voices.

On the other hand, I thought FOR SURE #GoldenGlobeSoWhite was something you made up. Nope, it's a thing. That sucks.
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3955
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: Golden Globes

Postby ITALIANO » Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:54 pm

Reza wrote:
ITALIANO wrote:
No, I don't support OscarSoWhite. And I will never support GoldenGlobesSoWhite. Awards, of any kind, are the result of something much more profound, and while for Americans they might be of the greatest importance, as a European but also as a human being my duty is to look at the origins of a problem, not at the surface of it. And the problem - which MUST be solved - is, of course, deeper, in many ways. I couldn't care less about privileged black actors complaining because they or their spouses haven't been nominated for an Oscar or for a Golden Globe. Their fight will never be mine.

Oh now Oscar Guy, Sonic Youth, Uri etc will accuse me of being a racist and so on. But I am sure that you, Sabin, know what I mean.


You are SO right. Looking at the world in black and white and assorted colors is uniquely a North American obsession. It's nothing but historical guilt which is now coming out in an obscene and hysterical way.

Looking at the awards list it never crosses my mind that there are only white actors on the list or if any minority is missing. They are all actors. Some make it. Many don't. Frothing at the mouth about a perceived "injustice" is not going to change anything. Only the best liked performances voted by the awards bodies will make it. It's their choice. Not ours. So getting hysterical is rather pointless.

Here is something an American friend - yes, VERY white - commented on the situation today:

"We are going through a crazy time right now in America and, really, throughout the Anglo-American world -- the Social Justice Warrior concept has really taken hold on the left, and those of us who consider ourselves liberal but still the nuance, if we dare point out the inconsistancies the SJW argument, we are immediately branded as "bigot" and "racist" and "sexist" and "homophobe" and "transphobe" etc., etc. It's extradinarily discouraging, and is really closing down minds. Indeed, it used be thought that it was conservative Republicans who had the closed minds and were anti-science, and some certainly are, but now we're seeing far too many on the left closing their minds and taking anti-science positions. It's more than just fights over who should be nominated for film awards, and it worries me for the persistance of Western/Enlightenment values".


There are aspects of the "politically correct" attitude that I don't dislike. I think, for example, that words are important, and that the ones we choose not only reaveal our inner feelings, beliefs, prejudices, but also promote them. So the right choice of words IS significant.

But political correctness can also be very limitating - a fornal, and very protective, cage with little relation to real life and real problems. Even on this board, when you say something which just slightly differs from what "ONE SHOULD SAY" - very reasonable, maybe, but still not 100% "correct" - the reactions are scared, upset, hysterical. The "political correct" person suddenly shows his or her real face, and it's usually not a nice face. You become the enemy. They can't get beyond the boundaries that the theories they have memorized confine them in - even if what you have said is just one small step away from those same boundaries.

Why? There are, of course, strong cultural and at times, I'm afraid, intellectual limitations. But I also sometimes feels that by talking honestly you show a freedom which they instantly hate and can't bear, because they don't have that freedom. Political correctess is - to some, of course, not to everyone - a shield which protects them not only from real life, bur from their inner instincts which, like all instincts, may not be correct at all, but which are still a part of us.

MaxWilder
Graduate
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:58 pm

Re: Golden Globes

Postby MaxWilder » Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:41 pm

I’ll take Jada Pinkett more seriously when she doesn’t have a personal connection to the film passed over.

As for Get Out, Jordan Peele made his name in comedy and the Lil Rey Howery character gets plenty of laughs. It’s not the craziest thing in the world to put in the comedy category. It seems that was done to make sure it was nominated. I guess that’s racist in a way, gaming the system to favor a race-themed movie from a black director, but not in a bad way. (I was happy to see it nominated.) I dunno. That’s a strange charge.

Reza
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 7915
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: Golden Globes

Postby Reza » Wed Dec 13, 2017 7:53 am

ITALIANO wrote:
No, I don't support OscarSoWhite. And I will never support GoldenGlobesSoWhite. Awards, of any kind, are the result of something much more profound, and while for Americans they might be of the greatest importance, as a European but also as a human being my duty is to look at the origins of a problem, not at the surface of it. And the problem - which MUST be solved - is, of course, deeper, in many ways. I couldn't care less about privileged black actors complaining because they or their spouses haven't been nominated for an Oscar or for a Golden Globe. Their fight will never be mine.

Oh now Oscar Guy, Sonic Youth, Uri etc will accuse me of being a racist and so on. But I am sure that you, Sabin, know what I mean.


You are SO right. Looking at the world in black and white and assorted colors is uniquely a North American obsession. It's nothing but historical guilt which is now coming out in an obscene and hysterical way.

Looking at the awards list it never crosses my mind that there are only white actors on the list or if any minority is missing. They are all actors. Some make it. Many don't. Frothing at the mouth about a perceived "injustice" is not going to change anything. Only the best liked performances voted by the awards bodies will make it. It's their choice. Not ours. So getting hysterical is rather pointless.

Here is something an American friend - yes, VERY white - commented on the situation today:

"We are going through a crazy time right now in America and, really, throughout the Anglo-American world -- the Social Justice Warrior concept has really taken hold on the left, and those of us who consider ourselves liberal but still the nuance, if we dare point out the inconsistancies the SJW argument, we are immediately branded as "bigot" and "racist" and "sexist" and "homophobe" and "transphobe" etc., etc. It's extradinarily discouraging, and is really closing down minds. Indeed, it used be thought that it was conservative Republicans who had the closed minds and were anti-science, and some certainly are, but now we're seeing far too many on the left closing their minds and taking anti-science positions. It's more than just fights over who should be nominated for film awards, and it worries me for the persistance of Western/Enlightenment values".

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3955
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: Golden Globes

Postby ITALIANO » Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:10 am

Sabin wrote:
Italiano wrote
Sabin wrote
she was at the forefront of #OscarSoWhite which (if this trend continues) has the makings of one of the most influential hashtags ever.

I'm not sure that this is the most reliable indicator of how good or solid ideas or even movements are, honestly... "being popular" - and, I'd say, especially "being popular on the net" - doesn't mean anything to me. So don't worry Sabin, you don't have to try to find something even remotely serious in this actress's statement :) It's the Golden Globes...

i didn't say "good or solid." I said influential...and it was. The Academy purged themselves of largely retired inactive voters, a move I totally support. So, it was entirely influential. And I support it.

But I do take your point. It feels very strange talking about the "responsibility" of the Hollywood Foreign Press.


So many things are influential but at the same time wrong - before the era of internet and even more so now... We should never automatically support what is fashionable, or influential, just because the majority does. And I will tell you more - even if certain effects can be good (as you say the Academy's reaction was - I don't know much about it honestly), this doesn't mean that the cause of such effects is necessarily good, or that one must agree with it. There is a difference between cause and effect - a philosophical one.

No, I don't support OscarSoWhite. And I will never support GoldenGlobesSoWhite. Awards, of any kind, are the result of something much more profound, and while for Americans they might be of the greatest importance, as a European but also as a human being my duty is to look at the origins of a problem, not at the surface of it. And the problem - which MUST be solved - is, of course, deeper, in many ways. I couldn't care less about privileged black actors complaining because they or their spouses haven't been nominated for an Oscar or for a Golden Globe. Their fight will never be mine.

Oh now Oscar Guy, Sonic Youth, Uri etc will accuse me of being a racist and so on. But I am sure that you, Sabin, know what I mean.

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7341
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Golden Globes

Postby Sabin » Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:39 am

Italiano wrote
Sabin wrote
she was at the forefront of #OscarSoWhite which (if this trend continues) has the makings of one of the most influential hashtags ever.

I'm not sure that this is the most reliable indicator of how good or solid ideas or even movements are, honestly... "being popular" - and, I'd say, especially "being popular on the net" - doesn't mean anything to me. So don't worry Sabin, you don't have to try to find something even remotely serious in this actress's statement :) It's the Golden Globes...

i didn't say "good or solid." I said influential...and it was. The Academy purged themselves of largely retired inactive voters, a move I totally support. So, it was entirely influential. And I support it.

But I do take your point. It feels very strange talking about the "responsibility" of the Hollywood Foreign Press.
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3955
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: Golden Globes

Postby ITALIANO » Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:18 am

Sabin wrote:she was at the forefront of #OscarSoWhite which (if this trend continues) has the makings of one of the most influential hashtags ever.


I'm not sure that this is the most reliable indicater of how good or solid ideas or even movements are, honestly... "being popular" - and, I'd say, especially "being popular on the net" - doesn't mean anything to me. So don't worry Sabin, you don't have to try to find something even remotely serious in this actress's statement :) It's the Golden Globes...

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7341
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Golden Globes

Postby Sabin » Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:11 pm

Mister Tee wrote
Sabin wrote
Second...Octavia Spencer, Hong Chau, and Mary J. Blige are all nominated for Best Supporting Actress. That's 60% women of color of the lineup! Progress, right? but Spencer and Blige are playing subjugated characters, while Chau is playing...well, I don't know, I haven't seen the movie yet. Haddish is playing a very liberated character in a very liberated movie in an all black ensemble. So, saying "We're not racist! We nominated Octavia Spencer for playing a cleaning lady and Mary J. Blige for playing the living embodiment of female disenfranchisement in Jim Crow" doesn't really work. But again: who knows if they saw it and who knows if they liked it.

1) Though I get your point, Sally Hawkins also plays a cleaning lady in The Shape of Water, so maybe it's not quite so demeaning for Octavia Spencer to be doing the same. And 2) Maybe a lot of people think pissing onto a crowd and screeching about it is a bit more demeaning for an actress.

1) I didn't say it was demeaning for Octavia Spencer to play a cleaning lady. But look at it this way: there is a willingness to nominate Octavia Spencer for playing these roles again and again, just like there is a willingness to nominate Viola Davis for playing these roles again and again. Let's say that Octavia Spencer gets nominated for 'The Shape of Water' which seems pretty likely. She will then join Viola Davis as the most nominated black actress in history. All six of those performances will be for playing black women dutifully suffering in the past. That kinda sucks, right?

2) Well, they didn't feel that way about Octavia Spencer cooking a shit pie, did they? Or reminiscing about how much she loves cooking fried chicken? I'm not much of a fan of 'Girls Trip' but I do think it has some things to recommend about it, ironically none of them involve her sense of humor. But if we're going to be fair to Tiffany Haddish's character, she plays a slut who is totally liberated and is also a proud Christian, which I found to be an unexpected layer. Just like in 'Bridesmaids,' it would be easy for them to portray Melissa McCarthy as a lesbian, but instead she actively pursues men. I don't think either performance deserves an Oscar nomination but yeah, I think they're both smarter than they appear in subverting expectations.
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6394
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Golden Globes

Postby Mister Tee » Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:16 pm

Sabin wrote:Second...Octavia Spencer, Hong Chau, and Mary J. Blige are all nominated for Best Supporting Actress. That's 60% women of color of the lineup! Progress, right? but Spencer and Blige are playing subjugated characters, while Chau is playing...well, I don't know, I haven't seen the movie yet. Haddish is playing a very liberated character in a very liberated movie in an all black ensemble. So, saying "We're not racist! We nominated Octavia Spencer for playing a cleaning lady and Mary J. Blige for playing the living embodiment of female disenfranchisement in Jim Crow" doesn't really work. But again: who knows if they saw it and who knows if they liked it.

1) Though I get your point, Sally Hawkins also plays a cleaning lady in The Shape of Water, so maybe it's not quite so demeaning for Octavia Spencer to be doing the same. And 2) Maybe a lot of people think pissing onto a crowd and screeching about it is a bit more demeaning for an actress.

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7341
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Golden Globes

Postby Sabin » Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:53 pm

Wow, there's a lot going on in her statement...

First...it sounds like the Hollywood Foreign Press were invited to see 'Girls Trip' but whether or not they went is another story. I have no idea from this story. Does the Hollywood Foreign Press have an obligation to see 'Girls Trip?' They have an obligation to see every movie. Who knows how many they get around to. But if they didn't see 'Girls Trip' because they thought that it looked like a black entertainment that they didn't have to see? Yeah, that's kind of racist.

Second...Octavia Spencer, Hong Chau, and Mary J. Blige are all nominated for Best Supporting Actress. That's 60% women of color of the lineup! Progress, right? but Spencer and Blige are playing subjugated characters, while Chau is playing...well, I don't know, I haven't seen the movie yet. Haddish is playing a very liberated character in a very liberated movie in an all black ensemble. So, saying "We're not racist! We nominated Octavia Spencer for playing a cleaning lady and Mary J. Blige for playing the living embodiment of female disenfranchisement in Jim Crow" doesn't really work. But again: who knows if they saw it and who knows if they liked it.

Third...to be fair to Jada, she's not calling them racist. She's saying it's more than racism (which admittedly does mean yes, it's racist). I'm not in love with every point she makes, but she was at the forefront of #OscarSoWhite which (if this trend continues) has the makings of one of the most influential hashtags ever. The Golden Globes are a notoriously lightweight affair so I don't really think they need to take their jobs any more seriously than the Critic's Choice because they don't mean anything and I don't think either one needs to exist. But in theory, 'Girls Trip' is the kind of movie that the "Best Comedy" category has been created to honor, right? So they can also honor the biggest and most loved comedies of the year. Sure, they didn't nominate Melissa McCarthy in the same kind of role Haddish played, but they did nominate 'Bridesmaids' and Kristen Wiig. I think this is most likely a case of too many movies up for Best Comedy. They love musicals and movies about Hollywood, so 'The Disaster Artist' and 'The Greatest Showman' beat out 'The Big Sick' and 'Girls Trip.'

Fourth...this 'Get Out' is not a comedy thing is ridiculous. Sure, it speaks to a very powerful truth, but it's a satire of a horror film. I can think of at least twenty films that were more absurdly mislabeled as comedies. The fact that Jordan Peele wasn't consulted before it was submitted is the bigger issue to me. But to be fair, I'm not sure if filmmakers are. When Jim Carrey accepted the Comedic/Musical Globe for 'Man on the Moon,' he said "I thought we were making a drama." And when Jack Nicholson accepted the Dramatic Globe for 'About Schmidt,' he said "I thought we were making a comedy." So, who knows...but should the filmmakers get a say in whether they made a comedy or drama? Yes.
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver


Return to “90th Predictions and Precursors”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests