Globes Post-Mortem

[Okri]

a) Not gonna lie, I listen to the Oppenheimer soundtrack at least once a week. Curious to see the film again to listen in context.

b) It's interesting to hear Schindler's List cited as a sweeper. 7 wins is probably the maximum a film can win without it really feeling like a sweeper for me. Though it helps that it didn't win any acting awards (and hurts that Spielberg's other film also won three Oscars, making it very much his night).

c) I genuinely thought Cooper would win here and this would be the first step towards the Oscar. I thought, like others had commented, that Murphy was the type of performer/performance to cruise to a nomination but stand no real shot at winning. More to ponder here. If it's between Murphy and Giamatti, I suppose it's the latter, but I'm also not 100% convinced he's getting nominated (I know I'm wrong and that it would be a genuine surprise for Domingo, Scott AND Wright to make it at this juncture)

d) Todd Boehly is currently damaging Chelsea Football Club over in the UK. He can't do worse to the Golden Globes than what he's doing to them.

e) I'm surprised that the Miyazaki retirement narrative would really be a hook because I think the last four Miyazaki films have been his "last" film. I also rewatched Across the Spider-verse over the holidays and it really is the equal to the Miyazaki in terms of sheer visual wow. But yeah, that it's the first half of a sequel about the importance of "the canon" is likely an Oscar obstacle. But I eye it's box office haul with raised eyebrows. And the Toy Story 4 comparison is pretty salient to me.

f) One of the downsides about the Oscar season is how it can turn you against people who probably don't deserve derision. But Randolph sweeping like she is will never not be puzzling to me. I expect her to win every award from now until the Oscars and it's just raising shrugs from me.

g) I agree with Sabin about Gladstone/Killers of the Flower Moon. I'm actually curious, though, if by emerging as the focal point for praise/awards will hinder DiCaprio/De Niro in any way (from getting a nomination).

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
Oppenheimer -- critically hailed, box office smash, admired director -- is an absolute classic best picture sweeper in any year from my childhood through to about the mid-90s. The only reason to doubt it at AMPAS today is that, in the years since that time, voters have sometimes strenuously gone out of their way to pass on such films in favor of "nicer" films-- Saving Private Ryan the first famous case, but also Crash over Brokeback Mountain, Argo over Zero Dark Thirty.

Then again, it may be voters were just waiting for a textbook example to go back to their old formula. Remember, in 2010, we were coming off a few years of bold-ish/a-historical choices (The Departed, No Country and The Hurt Locker), but, given a classic heartwarmer like The King's Speech, voters went all in as if the late aughts had never happened.

Maybe the lesson is that audiences haven't gotten tired of them. Hollywood just haven't been making them, or at least in a way that they enjoyed.

I think the reason to doubt it was blunted last year when they gave Everything Everywhere All At Once seven Oscars. It may not be a classic sweeper but it proves that if they like a film enough they're willing to give it everything. I definitely think Oppenheimer has those vibes.

Mister Tee wrote
We're going to have an honesty test next week when the Broadcasters announce their best actor award. Having listened to a number of blogger/pundits -- whose influence in that group is vast -- I'd say. prior to last night, they'd have voted massively for Cooper. But, since their votes don't have to be in till this week, and since "predicting the Oscars" is their mission in life, it would be unsurprising if a number of them didn't switch that choice to rubber-stamp the Globes. The question, though: which winner do they rubber-stamp? -- since Giamatti and Murphy seem about equally popular.

We'll see. I genuinely do what I can to pretend that group doesn't exist. I have no doubt that Paul Giamatti is more popular seeing as how he has about ten years of industry work on Murphy. Also worth noting just how many movies Murphy has been in that I've never heard of. My assumption here on out is going to be "As much good news for Oppenheimer as possible."

Mister Tee wrote
...and Part One of a sequel. I think it's that double-whammy that makes it vulnerable, and the Miyazaki retirement narrative only makes the job harder.

Then again, the Globes picked Missing Link a few years back, which didn't stop AMPAS from going the Pixar route with Toy Story 4.

Also worth noting, The Boy and the Heron was no. 1 at the box office a couple of weekends ago.

Mister Tee wrote
This is another case where the Broadcasters could make things more interesting but will probably prefer to set a narrative in stone. SAG or BAFTA are a more likely spot for alternative choices to show up.

Or maybe the biggest winner of the night was Downey, Jr. Even though he's been spoken of as the frontrunner all year, his role is not the type that wins. That speech was class act material and now Gosling has to vie with voters' desire to see Downey, Jr. do it again. This is basically why the Golden Globes exist and why awards season is more a primary than a race. Seeing Downey, Jr. up there thanking the people he thanked looked pretty good.

As Jamie Lee Curtis proved last year, it's not always about the role.

[Sabin]

One thing I neglected to mention is that since 2010, the one time a Best Screenplay Globe winner missed out on a Best Picture nomination was Steve Jobs. But that's a bit of a one-off. This group was/is in the tank heavily for Aaron Sorkin. They themselves didn't give Steve Jobs a Best Motion Picture-Drama nomination, which is a bit fitting because it's one of the few times they gave Best Picture Drama to a film that they didn't nominate for Best Screenplay. The previous instance was About Schmidt.

Increasingly, I think Anatomy of a Fall was the big winner.

danfrank wrote
The most disappointing award for me was the score award for Ludwig Göransson. I just re-watched Oppenheimer and I think the music would more appropriately be nominated for most intrusive score. It really is too much at times.

I'm going to rewatch Oppenheimer soon but one thing I am certain of: I'm still not going to like the score. I'm a significantly bigger fan of his television work than his film work.

[Mister Tee]

What we mostly learned from tonight was that there is a lot of industry respect for Oppenheimer.

Oppenheimer -- critically hailed, box office smash, admired director -- is an absolute classic best picture sweeper in any year from my childhood through to about the mid-90s. The only reason to doubt it at AMPAS today is that, in the years since that time, voters have sometimes strenuously gone out of their way to pass on such films in favor of "nicer" films-- Saving Private Ryan the first famous case, but also Crash over Brokeback Mountain, Argo over Zero Dark Thirty.

Then again, it may be voters were just waiting for a textbook example to go back to their old formula. Remember, in 2010, we were coming off a few years of bold-ish/a-historical choices (The Departed, No Country and The Hurt Locker), but, given a classic heartwarmer like The King's Speech, voters went all in as if the late aughts had never happened.

I came close to picking Murphy. I've always thought he was very much in the mix to win the Oscar. I mean, he's going to win the BAFTA, right? And he's the lead in the Best Picture frontrunner. That worked out for Yeoh and McDormand recently.

Twitter was having a field day making jokes about Bradley Cooper. It's still not over for him but I had a hunch that the HFPA would be kinder to this showbiz film than SAG. But who knows?

We're going to have an honesty test next week when the Broadcasters announce their best actor award. Having listened to a number of blogger/pundits -- whose influence in that group is vast -- I'd say. prior to last night, they'd have voted massively for Cooper. But, since their votes don't have to be in till this week, and since "predicting the Oscars" is their mission in life, it would be unsurprising if a number of them didn't switch that choice to rubber-stamp the Globes. The question, though: which winner do they rubber-stamp? -- since Giamatti and Murphy seem about equally popular.

I've been a little skeptical of Across the Spider-Verse's lock (because it's such a sequel)

...and Part One of a sequel. I think it's that double-whammy that makes it vulnerable, and the Miyazaki retirement narrative only makes the job harder.

Then again, the Globes picked Missing Link a few years back, which didn't stop AMPAS from going the Pixar route with Toy Story 4.

I'm not convinced Gosling is out of it but Downey Jr. gave the kind of speech I'd imagine people want to see more of.

This is another case where the Broadcasters could make things more interesting but will probably prefer to set a narrative in stone. SAG or BAFTA are a more likely spot for alternative choices to show up.

[Big Magilla]

For those who aren't aware, there is no HFPA anymore.

The Golden Globes are now owned by private equity firm Eldridge Industries and Dick Clark Productions.

The assets and intellectual property of the Golden Globes Awards have been owned by Eldridge Industries since June 2023.

Billionaire Todd Boehly is the chairman of Eldridge Industries. Helen Hoehne is the current President of the Golden Globes, and Tim Gray is the Executive Vice President of the Golden Globes.

[danfrank]

I didn’t think to tune into it until about two hours from the start. I didn’t intend to watch it at all, but just check in on who was winning. I discovered that on Variety’s website they had a live feed of the broadcast without the commercials. It just showed people mingling in the audience during the commercial breaks. This was a much preferable way to watch.

Afterward I went on YouTube to catch the opening monologue. I couldn’t get too far into it without turning it off, as it was too painful. The combo of bad writing, poor delivery, and the shots of the audience members rejecting every joke was just a disaster. At a time when the Globes needs to regain some credibility this was just a fail.

As to the awards themselves, they were all safe/likely choices save for the screenplay award. I wonder, just like “most editing” tends to win over voters this one won for “most writing.” Of course Oppenheimer is pretty much non-stop dialogue as well, so perhaps they wanted to share the wealth a bit. In the case of Anatomy of a Fall all that writing is beautifully done and so intelligent, and sounded so natural coming out of the mouth of the brilliant Sandra Hüller. A good win.

The most disappointing award for me was the score award for Ludwig Göransson. I just re-watched Oppenheimer and I think the music would more appropriately be nominated for most intrusive score. It really is too much at times.

A slight disappointment was Andrew Scott missing out on the best actor, drama award. If he was going to lose, though, I’m very glad it was to Murphy over Cooper. Cillian Murphy was great in Oppenheimer, anchoring a film that could easily have gone off the rails with its dizzying amount of content, characters, and time switches. He also gave an eloquent speech. I like him a lot. And hooray to the three Irish actors nominated in that category.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
Anyone who rags on Jimmy Kimmel should be forced to watch that cringe-fest into infinity.

Exactly my thoughts. I actually think it was a service of sorts. Sometimes it takes this to make someone appreciate the high bar of competence. Especially in this sense: if you lose the room early on, it's very hard to get them back.

I think a lot of the blame should go to the Globes themselves. They should have known two weeks was a short period of time to host a show, especially for someone who has (as far as I can tell) zero hosting experience. For me, this was the first time of my life where the Golden Globes was more cringey than the Oscars. Usually, they're a painless, occasionally quite funny affair where celebrities get drunk. I don't really know what a "respectable" Golden Globes affair looks like but most of their efforts didn't really work with one exception. I actually think their Best Standup Award is a good idea. It just so happened to fall flat when their winner failed to show up. I wouldn't have minded someone in control of their craft for a couple of minutes in the middle of that show. That said, none of the clips presented were very good.

Anyway, the HFPA may not have a great track record of forecasting winners but they do tend to have their finger to the wind. A Star is Born's momentum came to a halt here. Bohemian Rhapsody's momentum started. And 1917 launched among others.

What we mostly learned from tonight was that there is a lot of industry respect for Oppenheimer. I've been feeling that for a while now (in my Oscar game, I went all in on Oppenheimer). I'm going to see it again because I currently have a fairly mixed opinion of it but it exceeded expectations with five wins, the most of any film since La La Land. Nolan came across as a very lovely, presentable guy. I'm fascinated that with the incredible amount of turmoil in the world and renewed speculation about world war, the theme of the speeches was collaboration. It was a big night for the Oppenheimer family -- emphasis on the word family.

Poor Things over Barbie was not shocking either. Maybe if voters didn't have Box Office Achievement as an out (which ironically renders Barbie a bit as product) it would've won. But I'm not sure. Last year, The Banshees of Inisherin topped Everything Everywhere All At Once. Poor Things seems very much like something they would go for.

Not sure what the biggest loser of the night was. Maestro, May December, Past Lives, and The Zone of Interest all went home empty-handed. I'm inclined to say Oprah Winfrey showing up at the end was a consolation prize for how much The Color Purple's fortunes are dipping. I might say Killers of the Flower Moon. After a strong run of wins all critics' season, the baton has been passed to Oppenheimer. Aside from Gladstone, I don't think it wins anything else all season.

I came close to picking Murphy. I've always thought he was very much in the mix to win the Oscar. I mean, he's going to win the BAFTA, right? And he's the lead in the Best Picture frontrunner. That worked out for Yeoh and McDormand recently.

Twitter was having a field day making jokes about Bradley Cooper. It's still not over for him but I had a hunch that the HFPA would be kinder to this showbiz film than SAG. But who knows? He's in the same position Brendan Fraser was last year. This narrative built around Bradley Cooper is fascinating to me. It reminds me of the internet cattiness around DiCaprio's quest for an Oscar. The difference is DiCaprio had two decades of work preceding him. It was another narrative. This is Bradley Cooper's first, which may be why it's sticking.

Best Screenplay and Best Animated Film were the biggest upsets. I didn't see Anatomy of a Fall coming, let alone winning two. I've been skeptical of how the film will play to a group beyond critics. I guess this is proof that well enough. I still need to see The Boy and the Heron. I've been a little skeptical of Across the Spider-Verse's lock (because it's such a sequel) but I assumed that Into the Spider-Verse played so well that the return wouldn't be that challenging. The Boy and the Heron has made close to a clean sweep. I wonder if releasing his final film so soon after his films all dropped on Max will help him.

Giamatti's speech was nice. If there is a next time, I'd recommend: open with the teachers bit.

I'm not convinced Gosling is out of it but Downey Jr. gave the kind of speech I'd imagine people want to see more of.

[Big Magilla]

Somewhere on here is my comparison of 2023 to 1993. Yes, Oppenheimer is this year's Schindler's List. The surprising thing is that Cillian Murphy, unlike Liam Neesom, could also win Best Actor.

Murphy gave last night's best speech in my estimation, followed by Emma Stone, Christopher Nolan, and Lily Gladstone. Paul Giamatti started out awkwardly but finished nicely with his shoutout to teachers.

There were no bad acceptance speeches and just two really bad scenery chewing presenters - the combination of Will Ferrell and Kristen Wiig was one, Ray Romano was the other.

And, yes, that opening monologue was dreadful. The expanded roster of the membership gave the Globes new respectability but that tactless opening made me wonder if they had really changed after all.

[Sonic Youth]

I have to confess, I got halfway through the opening monologue and couldn't take any more -- had to fast-forward through the rest.

Same, except we shut our set off and kept it off for the rest of the night. I just picked a web page and hit 'refresh' instead (and I fell asleep before it ended anyway). Every year when I watch the Globes, I wonder why I've wasted so many hours of my life. I think this year - or rather, last year - was the last time.

Actually one of the main reasons I skipped was that the thought of watching Oppenheimer sweeping the entire evening depressed me. Oppenheimer's my official 'bete noir' this year, and while I haven't seen that many 2023 movies yet, I doubt that will change once I do.

[Mister Tee]

So, two hours, and no one has anything to say?

I was out having dinner with a friend, and caught up via DVR. I have to confess, I got halfway through the opening monologue and couldn't take any more -- had to fast-forward through the rest. Anyone who rags on Jimmy Kimmel should be forced to watch that cringe-fest into infinity.

The show started with two more or less predictable supporting performer choices, then startled us with an unexpected (exciting) screenplay pick, followed that up with a bracing animated film selection...and then proceeded to be a more or less typical Globes-ian evening, though one on the upper end of the scale. The biggest moments occurred in the lead acting categories, where Cooper was crushed, Giamatti was elevated, and Gladstone/Stone established as the last surviving lead actress combatants (the screenplay result had for a moment raised the Huller possibility, but it was not to be).

Some had suggested, prior to the show, that, while adding all those new international voters might broaden the taste-range, bringing the total number of voters so relatively high might undercut the quirk potential an 89-member roster had, and lead to more consensus picks. This was certainly true on the TV side, where all three areas -- drama/comedy/limited series -- saw the same shows win show, lead actor and lead actress.

And the Oppenheimer sweep was right in line with that, as well. It'd be disheartening if such a bountiful year were to end in a drearily predictable sweep. But 1993 was a great year, as well, and that's how it turned out. Oppenheimer looks from here like Nolan's Schindler's List.

ON EDIT: Forgot to mention, there were a few good speeches. Paul Giamatti's was quite good. Cillian Murphy and Lily Gladstone both gave graceful acceptances. And Christopher Nolan did a very nice job, as well.

On the presenter front, I continue to be under-whelmed by the comedy of Will Ferrell and Kristen Wiig. I did enjoy the Andra Day/Jon Batiste banter, and the Simu Liu/Issa Rae "white people roles" routine.