Globe Thoughts

[Okri]

I'm slowly drifting that way myself, MaxWilder. I have to admit I'm still rather startled that the regional-critics went so hard for her (though Lupita held her own).

[MaxWilder]

Zellweger who I reasoned would be honored for both herself and Garland.

I'm an ABZ: anyone but Zellweger. Now I'm picturing people voting for her and then patting themselves on the back, as if they've done a good deed for someone who died 50 years ago. I'm more pessimistic than ever.

[Big Magilla]

I won't post my predictions until after they appear on CinemaSight on Friday, but I did consider all of these multiple nominees and winners as problematic except for Zellweger who I reasoned would be honored for both herself and Garland.

While former winner Pitt seems such an obvious choice to repeat, multiple nominee, non-winner (though honorary award winner) Hopkins would seem overdue unless the sole purpose of the Globes this year is to predict Oscar winners in which case they will go with Pitt without batting an eye.

I may be all wet, but I also think first-timers Pryce and Banderas stand a better chance then former winner Phoenix, but I see DiCaprio and Scorsese as coin tosses.

[Mister Tee]

At some point before Sunday, I’ll get to my Globe predictions in the established thread. This is a somewhat deeper dive into elements surrounding the race, which I thought I’d offer separately.

Big overall question: is it typical for Globe nominees to include so many oft-nominated, even oft-winning candidates? Perhaps it’s been ever thus, but I’ve never noted it to quite this degree before – I look at this year’s nominees, and think, Holy crow: some of these people have been practically living at the Globes the past decade or more. Might that, in some cases, affect the outcome?

Start with Best Actress – Drama. The category features one (chanceless) newbie, Cynthia Erivo. But the other four candidates have extensive histories. Soairse Ronan has scored with HFPA every time she’s made it to the Oscars (Atonement, Brooklyn, and Lady Bird), winning for the latter…though in the lesser comedy/musical slot. Charlize Theron has done even better, scoring nods for Young Adult and Tully, along with her Academy-designated Monster and North Country, plus a TV citation for the Peter Sellers biopic. (She won, of course, during her 2003 Monster sweep.)

But the real champ on this roster?: Renee Zellweger – who WON three Globes in four years (for Nurse Betty, Chicago and Cold Mountain), and got additional nominations for Bridget Jones’ Diary, the sequel Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason, and (bet you’ve forgotten this one) Miss Potter. The issue now becomes, does this previous Globe-love tell us voters simply swoon for Zellweger whenever she’s in contention and will do so again? – or might they decide she’s been rewarded enough, and opt for someone else?

The most likely “someone else” would be Scarlett Johansson, who has her own long history with HFPA. Though she’s still looking for first AMPAS attention, this is her fifth Globe nod: previously up for Lost in Translation, Girl with a Pearl Earring, Match Point, and (speaking of forgotten efforts) A Love Song for Bobby Long. Johansson already has the theoretical advantage of being the only one in this category whose film is nominated. Could this lengthy resume kick in, and give her a somewhat-unexpected win over widely-predicted Zellweger?

The musical/comedy side of the ledger also has two highly-rewarded veterans: Emma Thompson and Cate Blanchett – the first a two-time winner (her second for writing Sense and Sensibility) with 7 previous nods for acting alone (plus a TV citation for Wit); the second a 3-time winner, with a staggering 9 earlier nominations. But the current credit plays some part in the race, and both these ladies’ films are so low-impact that they’re peripheral to the race. First-timer Awkwafina ought to win -- though Ana de Armas is riding the buzz of her currently-hot movie. (Beanie Feldstein; who knows?).

On to the men: Jonathan Pryce has the least history of the Drama Actor bunch: just a TV nod for Barbarians at the Gates. Adam Driver, thought to be strongly in the race, also comes in with a skimpy resume -- last year’s BlackkKlansman his sole Globe credit.

Christian Bale has matched his AMPAS nominations, getting Globe-nominated for The Fighter, American Hustle, The Big Short, and last year’s Vice. He won for both the first and last of those, and the recency of the Vice win will surely hurt whatever slim chance he had of a win.

You might expect Antonio Banderas would come into this race with little earlier fanfare, but, in fact, he’s been nominated twice for film (Evita and The Mask of Zorro), and in addition scored two TV mentions. Given the HFPA’s greater-than-AMPAS willingness to award subtitled performers (Huppert, Cotillard, and, long ago, Liv Ullmann and Anouk Aimee), plus Pain & Glory’s best foreign film nomination, I give him a shot at pulling this out.

The resume-champ, though, is of course, Joaquin Phoenix, up for the 6th time, after nominations for Gladiator, Walk the Line, The Master, Her, and Inherent Vice. His one win -- for Walk the Line -- was 1) quite a while ago and 2) in the secondary musical/comedy slot, so voters may see this as his time. (Especially with Joker in best picture contention, a status that may or may not be repeated at the Oscars.) A lot of the AwardsWorthy folk are convinced Phoenix is going to barrel through the TV contests; this will be the first test of that proposition, with Driver and (says I) Banderas offering some resistance.

On the musical/comedy side: Daniel Craig and Roman Griffin Davis, category virgins, should simply enjoy the dinner and drinks; they have no history, and little hope of winning.

The megastar of the category is clearly Leonardo DiCaprio, for whom Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a (no kidding) 12th nomination -- in addition to his five Oscar-recognized roles, he’s been cited for Titanic, Catch Me If You Can, The Departed, Revolutionary Road, J. Edgar, and Django Unchained. He’s also a three-time Globe winner – for The Aviator, Wolf of Wall Street, and The Revenant. It’s hard to say what this embarrassment of riches will mean for his showing next weekend. Does it indicate the Globers just love their Leo, and will choose him once again? (He’s viewed as the front-runner, not least because of his film’s strength.) Or might they think enough is enough, and go for an underdog?

Meaning, maybe, Eddie Murphy, who has a decent Globe history of his own, having been nominated for Trading Places, Beverly Hills Cop, The Nutty Professor, and Dreamgirls (plus, lest we forget, a long-ago Best New Star citation, for 48hrs.).

Or could they choose newcomer Taron Egerton, whose Rocketman performance is a near-cousin to last year’s Rami Malek’s, and who, I keep hearing, is campaigning his ass off? It would certainly be a huge signal for Egerton’s ferocious Oscar campaign if he were to topple the giants here.

People have been noting for a while that this year’s supporting actor slate is close to an all-slumming-stars gathering; the group’s Globe history puts that fact into sharp relief. Start with Al Pacino – who makes DiCaprio look like a piker, by virtue of a seismic 14 film nominations (plus four more TV mentions). The HFPA, like AMPAS, gave Pacino the win for Scent of a Woman, but, to their credit, they also cited him during his career-heat period, awarding him best drama actor for Serpico. They’ve also honored him twice for TV work, including his revered Roy Cohn in Angels in America. That seems enough for a lifetime, and the fact an Irishman co-star has been grabbing most of the supporting actor attention suggests Al will watch from the sidelines this year.

Stood next to Pacino, Tom Hanks’s Globe resume seems not-quite-so-impressive – or as unimpressive as 9 frickin’ mentions can seem. Hanks also has the distinction of being a 4-time winner for film – drama actor in Philadelphia, Gump, and Cast Away; musical/comedy actor in Big. The Globes just love this guy. However, like Meryl Streep in her middle period, all those wins seem to have ruled Hanks out as a win possibility most years. That’ll hold until…you know…it stops, and they decide to spring for him again. We just can’t know when that’ll happen – recall that Meryl’s Adaptation and Iron Lady wins were far from universally predicted.

If I told you, of the three remaining contenders, only one has won a Globe – would you remember it was Brad Pitt? In what feels like another lifetime, Pitt won supporting actor for 12 Monkeys, nearly a quarter century ago. I don’t think that alone’ll work against another win this Sunday – Pitt’s been nominated multiple times since, for Babel, plus his Oscar-cited Benjamin Button and Moneyball; if they want to give him this year’s prize, there’s no compelling reason to hold back. I’d say Pitt has the best chance of any candidate this year of running the table on the 4 TV prizes.

But I do find it notable that Oscar winner Joe Pesci has never won a Globe, despite being nominated for the films that got him to the Oscars (his Raging Bull performance, as at AMPAS, lost to Hutton/Ordinary People; his Oscar-winning Goodfellas fell to Bruce Davison in Longtime Companion). And, more remarkably, that Anthony Hopkins -- with nominations going back to the forgotten Magic in 1978, and including that 90s run that made him a true star -- has never won a Globe. (His Silence of the Lambs performance lost to Nick Nolte’s Prince of Tides.) With The Two Popes getting a bunch of key nominations, and knowing that HFPA, at least at one point, tended to favor Europeans… I’m not saying Hopkins is going to win here. But, if he does, I’d like it known that I put the proposition forward first.

Supporting actress isn’t as powerhouse a category, but everyone listed has been nominated at least once. The two with the shortest backlists are Margot Robbie – nominated for I, Tonya two years back – and Jennifer Lopez -- nominated for Selena in 1997. (What a long wait that was.) Lopez’s celebrity-sheen is her strongest weapon, and gives her at least an even chance at winning the race

The category pet is clearly Annette Benning, who’s on her 8th nomination – and, thanks to the wonder of the musical/comedy categories, has even got two wins, for Being Julia and The Kids Are All Right. But, as has so often happened for her, her vehicle here is just too weak for that history to boost her into prime contention.

Kathy Bates has a pretty decent history with the Globes, as well. They set her on her road to Oscar victory, being the first to award her for Misery. They also subsequently nominated her for Fried Green Tomatoes, Primary Colors and About Schmidt, and cited her twice for TV work, including a memorable win for The Late Shift. But her film dying at the box office cuts into her already limited hopes.

One the one hand, Laura Dern is close to a newbie -- Rambling Rose, in 1991, was her only previous film citation. But that doesn’t begin to capture her history with HFPA – she’s been nominated a remarkable 6 times for TV work, and racked up a truly impressive 4 wins as a result. (Plus, if you want to go back to the beginning, she was Miss Golden Globe in 1982.) She’ll be some kind of test, whether Globe favorites are favorites-into-infinity, or whether enough-is-enough ever kicks in.

Finally, there’s the directing category, which, in recent years, has given us significant clues about the outcome of the Oscar race. In five of the past six years, the Globe directing winner has gone on to win the directing Oscar (Linklater/Innaritu the only discrepancy).

First-time nominee Todd Phillips falls into the “goddamned lucky to be there at all” category. I’d be shocked if he went all the way to a win here; there’s just too much resistance, and his competition is way stronger than last year, when Bohemian Rhapsody shocked us so.

Sam Mendes, previously nominated not just for his winner American Beauty, but also for Revolutionary Road, returns with a film whose reputation has seemed to diminish hourly. 1917’s reviews were far less ecstatic than initially promised – down to 80 on Metacritic – but they do all highlight technical bravura, which can often win over Globe voters. I’m dubious they’ll be that anxious to give Mendes a second win, but if they fall for his film, of course it can happen.

Bong Joon-ho is a tantalizing possibility. Cuaron last year isn’t the only foreign-language effort to pull off a win in this category; the Globes previously chose Julian Schnabel for The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. Parasite is clearly a way hotter contender than most subtitled efforts – most acknowledge it as top three in the best picture race -- and a Bong win here would it signal it has a genuine shot at the top two Oscar prizes.

Putting Bong aside for a moment: Much early blogger discussion on the directing Oscar this year has centered on the question, would voters find it more pressing to give Scorsese a second award, or Quentin Tarantino, who’s won twice for screenwriting, his first for directing? But a face-off based on that premise doesn’t apply at the Globes – Tarantino holds roughly the same position: no directing win (despite three previous nominations)/two screenplay wins (in four nominations). But Scorsese, contra his AMPAS luck, has been royally feted at the Globes: an impressive three wins (for Gangs of New York, The Departed, and Hugo) from 8 previous nominations. Which makes his situation somewhat akin to DiCaprio’s this year: has he won so many times already that voters will feel inclined to go elsewhere – whether to Tarantino, who’d no doubt love the directing trophy, or to Bong? And, secondary question, would this outcome have a binding effect on the match-up at AMPAS, where Scorsese’s win record is much less impressive?

These are the issues I’ll be pondering most between now and Sunday.