Golden Globes

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Golden Globes

Post by OscarGuy »

As we all know, Pinkett Smith did this two years ago because her husband wasn't nominated for a role he was never going to be nominated for. The reason she attacked this year's awards is because she's IN Girls Trip.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Golden Globes

Post by Big Magilla »

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: Golden Globes

Post by ITALIANO »

The Original BJ wrote: But then a take like this emerges and it’s hard not to just roll my eyes and feel like she’s just trying to create unnecessary controversy
Racism is a serious, dranatic subject. The way it is applied to film awards lately is often ridiculous, and in this case it's especially absurd. As I said in the past, such an attitude is another example of political correctness gone wrong (and I'm not against political correctness in itself) - it definitely doesn't solve the problem, it just distracts attention from the real issue. Which, of course, can be applied to other themes...
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Golden Globes

Post by The Original BJ »

So now Jada Pinkett Smith — awards season’s annual shit-stirrer — is blaming racism for the reason Tiffany Haddish didn’t get a Golden Globe nomination. This is a pretty interesting argument to make given that that category is 60% women of color.

I’m also a bit perplexed by her argument that slotting Get Out in the comedy categories is also racist. That might be a questionable classification — though it’s worth noting that the film was advertised as early as last year as a horror comedy, and is quite funny as social satire, so there’s a clear argument to be made there — but I have no idea how it’s demeaning to the movie (and people of color) to consider it a comedy. It’s not like the comedy category is a lesser prize.

I’m generally trying to be very conscious of listening to people of color when they call out racism these days, and not immediately jump to the conclusion that “of course that isn’t racism” when in most cases it probably is (whether direct or systemic). But then a take like this emerges and it’s hard not to just roll my eyes and feel like she’s just trying to create unnecessary controversy (in a way that doesn’t actually seem like it’s doing anything to better the professional opportunities for people of color in Hollywood.)
User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 4453
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Golden Globes

Post by Precious Doll »

Okri wrote: re: Call Me By Your Name

Cue rage against SPC for their shitty, shitty handling of this film. How is it still on less than 10 screens? I can imagine a scenario where both Stuhlbarg and Hammer miss, to be frank.
I can't blame SPC. They released it wide in UK in late October to underwhelming screen averages and the number of screens and screen averages continued to drop each following week. However, now that it is on 23 screens it average rose slightly.

The film is a tough sell to the general public. Most moviegoers simply don't want to watch a film about to two guys falling in love. I really doubt we will see anywhere near the $178 worldwide box office that Brokeback Mountain took.

For some odd reason in Australia they are showing the trailer to Call Me By Your Name with family orientated films like Wonder & Goodbye Christopher Robin.
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Golden Globes

Post by The Original BJ »

OscarGuy wrote:What's worse, Okri, is that SPC hasn't been sending out screeners of the film, not even to GALECA, the single most important demographic they woudl want to target.
I got a screener of Call Me By Your Name, fwiw.
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: Golden Globes

Post by rolotomasi99 »

ThePianist wrote:I'm not too shocked at Christopher Plummer, I kinda saw this coming.

However, I am absolutely floored with that Ridley Scott Nom. Like, what the actual f**k?
Reminds me of last year with NOCTURNAL ANIMALS being nominated for director and screenplay. Nobody saw that one coming either. Aaron Taylor-Johnson winning Supporting Actor was also a huge shocker. Perhaps Plummer will pull off the same feat.
"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
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: Golden Globes

Post by anonymous1980 »

Mister Tee wrote:
But, as you say, with all that, Oldman can win. The strongest factor in his favor is the near-impossibility of making an affirmative case for anyone else winning.
Oh, I wouldn't say it's THAT impossible. One could make the case for Chalamet winning. His film has far more passionate supporters and admirers than Darkest Hour. Some people might resent the fact that Oldman has been rubber stamped as an Oscar front-runner before anyone saw a frame of the film and throw their vote somewhere else. Yes, the Best Actor category heavily favors veterans over splashy newcomers, especially over splashy young newcomers, the appeal that Chalamet could shatter the youngest Best Actor winner record in its 90th year could be enticing. I'm not saying it's gonna happen but should he win one of the televised awards, Oldman should start worrying.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Golden Globes

Post by OscarGuy »

What's worse, Okri, is that SPC hasn't been sending out screeners of the film, not even to GALECA, the single most important demographic they woudl want to target.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Golden Globes

Post by Okri »

re: Get Out/screenplay

While I definitely echo that this race is much tighter than internet buzz suggests, I think that Peele's advantage is that original screenplay can sometimes feel like best/most interesting premise - I'd argue Her, Django, and Midnight in Paris all won in part because of that and two of them against films that felt like stronger bp candidates. That it's a massive zeitgeist hit also helps.

re: The Big Sick

I don't know what to think. Part of me thinks that it feels a little to indie for the Golden Globes, but it also grossed mid 40s, which seems huge for this film.

re: Call Me By Your Name

Cue rage against SPC for their shitty, shitty handling of this film. How is it still on less than 10 screens? I can imagine a scenario where both Stuhlbarg and Hammer miss, to be frank.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Golden Globes

Post by Mister Tee »

The Original BJ wrote: It may also be worth noting that the Oscar success Get Out has most been compared to -- The Sixth Sense, another out-of-nowhere horror film that became a box office and critical phenomenon -- didn't have a very strong Globe showing either.
Of course, The Sixth Sense came along in the era before we had 30 cities issuing separate "critics' awards", so we don't know if it would have felt different today, but the surprise to me is how much support Get Out has been getting from critics in their year-end voting. (More on that below.) Sixth Sense was strictly a hit movie, not anything critics would ever have voted for, so no one especially expected it to show up at the Globes. That it DID show up in such a big way at, first, the DGA, then the Oscars, was a surprise to me (especially given how many superior films were left out in its stead).
The Original BJ wrote:Three Billboards has recently come under fire from folks who view some of its messages as problematic -- i.e. the fact that Rockwell aspires to do something decent despite his racist/violent past, and an opinion that the ending is jingoistic. I generally find those arguments sort of reductive -- I don't think the movie is endorsing the morality of the last decision the characters make, nor do I think it's excusing any of the horrible things Rockwell (or McDormand, for that matter) do while also empathizing with them for other reasons -- and the nominations today might be evidence that that take is shared more by left-wing political Twitter than most audiences.
You don't make many friends by telling people "That's your opinion because you don't know anything about art", but it's the only honest retort to a lot of that reaction (which I've seen, as well). McDonagh is in love with ambiguity, and the people making these arguments, though they would probably deny this, can't deal with such ambiguity -- they want their world-view spelled out so no one can miss it. G.B. Shaw was a pacifist/socialist, yet he wrote a play, Major Barbara, where a munitions manufacturer wins all the arguments. Can you imagine today's Twitter mob taking that in stride? They'd be labeling Shaw a fascist from morn to night.
The Original BJ wrote:Oldman's grasp on the Oscar seems more tenuous as time goes by, though it is worth noting that his film received the exact same single Globe nomination that Capote and Milk did en route to biopic Best Actor Oscars. (And yes, I know the counter-argument is that those two films were significantly more acclaimed.) At the same time, Call Me By Your Name's soft performance this morning doesn't necessarily suggest that Chalamet's vehicle is so beloved that he's about to sweep up the prize by inertia either.
Sean Penn of course lost the Globe -- that's what made that a fun race that year, as he lost Globe & BAFTA to Rourke, while winning SAG and the Broadcasters, before finally eking out the Oscar.

Philip Seymour Hoffman is a more encouraging example for Oldman to cite, since he did win the Globe en route to an easy Oscar victory. But Hoffman's luck with critics was, to put it gently, somewhat greater. He lost the NY Critics prize to Heath Ledger -- a fact worth mentioning because, as far as I can see, it was the ONLY best actor award he didn't win that entire year. He had one of the more spectacular runs of a season I can recall -- perhaps second only to Helen Mirren in lead (and Christoph Waltz/Mo'Nique in support).

But, as you say, with all that, Oldman can win. The strongest factor in his favor is the near-impossibility of making an affirmative case for anyone else winning.
The Original BJ wrote:Do folks really view Get Out as the strongest Original Screenplay candidate? It seems to me to be about running even with Lady Bird, The Post, and Three Billboards -- which is a lot of candidates to be running even with, and that's assuming they all make it, with The Shape of Water, Phantom Thread, and The Big Sick all solidly in the running. I couldn't begin to make an argument for how this category will shake out.
I don't take those minor critics' groups altogether seriously, but I do look at them. And what I can tell you is, of 11 screenplay awards given to original scripts this year, Get Out has won 8 of them. Including LA, so it's not just second-tier stuff. Apart from NY/NBR choosing Phantom Thread (which we can't even guarantee will be nominated) and Boston citing Lady Bird, it's been Peele's script all the way. I find this somewhat baffling, given the film ranks behind almost all the other best picture contenders on Metacritic; it feels like critics might be upgrading their real-time opinions to fit an in-fashion moment. (Or maybe it means a lot of these critics are young, as it seems the younger/blogger generation is putting the most energy into pushing the film.) Believe me, I had the same view as you two weeks ago, that the race was broad, and certainly included at least Lady Bird and Three Billboards. But I can't ignore the amount of evidence that has begun to accumulate. Though perhaps today is the start of a turn in fortune.
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: Golden Globes

Post by criddic3 »

(Ridley is a guaranteed miss.)
Since no one outside this group has really seen the movie, this seems awfully presumptuous to say.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Golden Globes

Post by The Original BJ »

Some more thoughts, some in response to others' posts:

The Florida Project seemed like the anti-Globe movie -- cinema verite about poor people, with a cast of (almost entirely) non-actors. If you're using Beasts of the Southern Wild as its Oscar precedent, that got even fewer Globe nominations. I don't really think any less of its Oscar potential (i.e. trying to hang on to one of those last Best Picture spots) than I did yesterday.

It may also be worth noting that the Oscar success Get Out has most been compared to -- The Sixth Sense, another out-of-nowhere horror film that became a box office and critical phenomenon -- didn't have a very strong Globe showing either.

Three Billboards has recently come under fire from folks who view some of its messages as problematic -- i.e. the fact that Rockwell aspires to do something decent despite his racist/violent past, and an opinion that the ending is jingoistic. I generally find those arguments sort of reductive -- I don't think the movie is endorsing the morality of the last decision the characters make, nor do I think it's excusing any of the horrible things Rockwell (or McDormand, for that matter) do while also empathizing with them for other reasons -- and the nominations today might be evidence that that take is shared more by left-wing political Twitter than most audiences.

Oldman's grasp on the Oscar seems more tenuous as time goes by, though it is worth noting that his film received the exact same single Globe nomination that Capote and Milk did en route to biopic Best Actor Oscars. (And yes, I know the counter-argument is that those two films were significantly more acclaimed.) At the same time, Call Me By Your Name's soft performance this morning doesn't necessarily suggest that Chalamet's vehicle is so beloved that he's about to sweep up the prize by inertia either.

Earlier I compared Stuhlbarg's work in Call Me By Your Name to Denholm Elliott's in A Room With a View, who got a surprise Oscar nomination when his younger co-star with a larger, romantic role had been recognized far more strongly by the precursors (Day-Lewis won NBR & NY that year). Maybe there's still hope for Stuhlbarg?

I think a lot of the blogger folks -- for obvious reasons, given that Downsizing hasn't opened yet -- just aren't aware how meaty Hong Chau's part is, particularly in a field where (as Sabin says), the competition isn't that stellar, even among the better options. Although I do think Alexander Payne treats her character like more of a punchline than I'd like, I don't think people will blame the actress for that when she otherwise makes such a strong impression. I think her challenge at this point is simply trying to get a nomination as a non-famous actor in a supporting role in a film that isn't contending anywhere else -- though, as Amy Ryan and Jacki Weaver (the first time) have proven, it's not impossible.

Do folks really view Get Out as the strongest Original Screenplay candidate? It seems to me to be about running even with Lady Bird, The Post, and Three Billboards -- which is a lot of candidates to be running even with, and that's assuming they all make it, with The Shape of Water, Phantom Thread, and The Big Sick all solidly in the running. I couldn't begin to make an argument for how this category will shake out.

It does really seem weird that The Big Sick tanked so widely, especially given that the Globes have categories solely designed for comedies. But I went back and looked at my halfway through the year post, and my take at the time on that movie was MAYBE for screenplay and the supporting actors, the implication being that in a competitive field, it might be too much of a Sundance movie to get all the way there. And I didn't mention Best Picture as a possibility at all. I'd be shocked if WGA didn't go for it -- "TV writers have a hit feature" is a narrative plenty in the Guild would want to celebrate -- but it seems pretty possible it gets just squeezed out of the Original Screenplay Oscar race, maybe just missing Best Picture in the 10th spot as well. (It sort of has the inverse of Disaster Artist's situation, where its strongest potential for nominations are Picture and Original Screenplay, two VERY crowded categories this year.)
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Golden Globes

Post by Sabin »

Mister Tee wrote
Speaking of fresher things, there's that surprise three-fer All the Money in the World got. It's entirely possible this will be strictly a Globes thing -- they could simply be honoring the freak-show aspect of the sudden re-shoot, or, even more Globe-ian, the fact that they had the film screened for them while no other critics did. I'm inclined to think all these nods will fail to be repeated at AMPAS. But...maybe...the film will fill out the still-uncertain adapted screenplay slot?
I think All the Money in the World fits squarely into the Hollywood Foreign Press' affinity for...how shall we call them? "Weird thrillers." In 2014, Gone Girl picked up nominations for acting, directing, writing, and score. Last Year, Nocturnal Animals picked up nominations for acting, directing, and writing. Neither got a picture nomination and neither picked up more than a token acting nomination at the Academy Award. I think All the Money in the World is in similar territory. Who knows what its token nomination could be. You're right. Maybe David Scarpa for Adapted Screenplay is the likeliest.

Really, we'll have to wait to see how the BAFTA's respond to it, because SAG voters surely haven't seen the film in time to put it on their ballots.
"How's the despair?"
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Golden Globes

Post by Mister Tee »

I slept in this morning, fired up my DVR-record of the Today show, and of course found that our local "event" had pre-empted all Globe coverage. (Mercifully, the event had minor effect -- since 2001, our city's been lucky that those trying to create mayhem here have been terminal bunglers.) So, I jumped to Variety, and saw their first sentence of Globe coverage included Three Billboards -- leading me to think, well, that changes perspective...for what seems the fifth time in the past ten days.

I think one over-riding principle should guide all reactions to this and subsequent developments between now and the day of the Oscar nominations: there are too many quality candidates for just about every prime Oscar category. (Thanks to generally-favorable response to late-openers The Disaster Artist, The Post and Phantom Artist, even the seemingly moribund best actor category has moved to respectable territory.) This will almost inevitably mean different slates at each venue, particularly in crazy-competitive slots like director or supporting actor, and we shouldn't take any particular result as crucial to any candidate's ultimate fate.

That said, some thoughts on this group:

The category offering the least surprise was Film-Drama, which worked out the way most here predicted. (Interesting no one saw much hope for The Florida Project, which has been doing startlingly well in the critics' match-ups.) Yet not all nominees are equal: Call Me by Your Name fell short in key back-up categories of writing/directing; Dunkirk did about par (a Rylance nomination would have marked it a more serious hopeful); and the other three performed about as well as they could have.

I've been among those getting cold feet about Three Billboards -- from its under-performance among critics (not a single screenplay award?), its minor softening at the box-office, and dismissive response from the one Academy member I know personally. But, with this excellent showing, I'm happily ready to re-evaluate. Remember: what first put the film on the map was its Audience Award at Toronto, and it's followed that up with similar prizes from other minor festivals. Perhaps, counter-intuitively, it's more a populist choice than a critics' favorite? In any case, this reception today helps offset the disappointing results of the past ten days, and a Best cast/actress/supporting actor run at SAG will cement it as a solid contender.

The Shape of Water had a terrible start -- exclusion from the Spirits and NBR, no notice from NY -- but, starting with its LA wins, it's been igniting sparks everywhere since, and I think has to be thought of as one of the strongest possibilities for being the ultimate Oscar winner.

The Post and Dunkirk are down-the-middle choices that appear poised to hold up well throughout the season. Whether either generates the enthusiasm to be a best picture winner remains to be seen, but their chances of getting widely nominated seem strong.

Get Out had built up such a head of steam from critics that its showing today -- missing director and especially screenplay -- feels like a stumble. In fact, one wonders, had it not been questionably classified as comedy, might it have shown up with nothing at all here?

Lady Bird is thought to have been short-changed by missing best director, but I think film/screenplay/actress/supporting actress is a fine haul.

Given the HFPA's long weakness for musicals, The Greatest Showman's turning up here could mean nothing at all.

The Big Sick is surely the big omission, and may bode ill for it at AMPAS, even in screenplay or supporting actress. Why do we think it was so shunned? It simply opened too early, and was supplanted by fresher films? Or they didn't find it that funny?

Speaking of fresher things, there's that surprise three-fer All the Money in the World got. It's entirely possible this will be strictly a Globes thing -- they could simply be honoring the freak-show aspect of the sudden re-shoot, or, even more Globe-ian, the fact that they had the film screened for them while no other critics did. I'm inclined to think all these nods will fail to be repeated at AMPAS. But...maybe...the film will fill out the still-uncertain adapted screenplay slot?

Darkest Hour not even scraping up a scoring nod, to say nothing of missing the glamour categories, is the umpteenth indication this is a very weak vehicle to be carrying Oldman. If he doesn't win the Globe (and there's ample precedent to suggest he won't), his aura of invincibility will be completely gone -- not to say he can't still win the Oscar, but it'll be a tougher haul than anticipated.

Willem Dafoe being Florida Project's sole nominee similarly hurts him here. The precedent I suggested yesterday -- Landau in Ed Wood -- had both his film and Depp nominated (albeit in the easier-get comedy slot). But J.K. Simmons pulled off a win despite HFPA general indifference to Whiplash, so you can't say it never happens. This'll be an interesting one to watch, since I think Dafoe -- given his film's low profile -- needs the sense of running the table to become an Oscar inevitability. Mahershala Ali's film was such an event he could brush off the loss to Taylor-Johnson. If Dafoe should lose to, say, Rockwell, I think repercussions could be stronger.

Sadly, BJ's fear -- that a category-frauded Hammer would start getting the nominations Stuhlbarg merited -- seems to be coming true. I'm hoping SAG's supporting actor slate offers offsetting news.

I haven't seen Mudbound (I still do Netflix the antediluvian DVD way), but what I've heard from many quarters fully echoes what you guys are saying, that the Mary J. Blige thing makes no sense. Do they just want her there because she's a big name?

Tiffany Haddish would seem to really NEED SAG on Wednesday for the NY critics' push to have led anywhere.

I'm surprised so many people are so surprised by Hong Chau. After Metcalf and Janney, she surely got the strongest personal reviews of anyone in the category. I think she's been downgraded by bloggers all season long simply because she's in an Alexander Payne film; to many bloggers, Payne is History's Greatest Monster.

Of the nominated directors, I'd only count on Nolan and del Toro carrying over to AMPAS. Spielberg obviously CAN make it, if The Post is a big enough overall deal -- but it's worth pointing out, Spielberg is almost always nominated by the Globes (this is his 12th time), so it could be a fake-out. There are so many people who could also contend -- Gerwig & Peele, but also Baker and Anderson (along with McDonagh) -- that my head spins just to think about it.

Screenplay is missing the two candidates who seem currently most likely to win Oscars (Call Me by Your Name and Get Out), so picking a winner here will be interesting. I think any but Molly's Game could triumph (though kudos to Sorkin for once again beating the odds with the Globers).
Post Reply

Return to “90th Predictions and Precursors”