Morgan Freeman in Red having a word with a HFPA Representative.
By Sean Kelly
December 14th saw the announcement of the nominations for the Golden Globe awards. Traditionally, the awards have been good at predicting the films that would later go on to win at the Oscars. However, looking at the list this year, I couldn’t help but scratch my head at some of the nominations. There’s nothing wrong with the nominations for “Best Picture – Drama” and I am sure that all five of those nominees will be among the ten nominated for the Oscars.
However, the nominations that had me scratching my head belongs to the always cryptic category of “Best Picture – Comedy/Musical.” This has always been a funny category for me, since it seems that the Hollywood Foreign Press Association has often nominated films that barely fit either of those two categories. That is definitely the case for this year.
It’s not all misses – the nominee that seems the best fit in the category is The Kids Are Alright and it’s safe to call this indie comedy the likely winner. Also, I have no real argument against the nomination of the action/comedy Red even if in the long run the film is more action than comedy.
The first nomination I feel doesn’t totally fit is Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland. It’s true that Johnny Depp’s performance as the Mad Hatter was a fairly comedic role, and I have no qualms about him getting a nomination for “Best Actor – Comedy/Musical.” However, I would have to argue that the film as a whole is more a fantasy/adventure film than a comedy. That said, the film probably fits in the category better than the next two films.
Burlesque. Because apparently Aguilera is a draw again.
The two nominations that have me (and pretty much everyone else) scratching their heads the most are the nominations for Burlesque and The Tourist. I have no argument about whether or not the musical Burlesque is genre-appropriate to the category – it is. However, what has me confused is why this film (which has been receiving terrible reviews) is being nominated for best picture. The same question can also be asked about The Tourist, which in addition to the terrible reviews it has received, fits the least within the category (once again the nomination seems based on a somewhat comedic Johnny Depp performance in a non-comedic film – for which he received a second Best Actor nomination).
A hypothesis from The Toronto Star’s Peter Howell I must agree with is that these two nominations have more to do with drawing star-power than whether or not the films are actually worthy of nomination. By nominating Burlesque and The Tourist for “Best Picture – Comedy/Musical” (with a few secondary nominations thrown in for good measure), the HFPA can be sure that Christina Aguilera, Cher, Johnny Depp, and Angelina Jolie all make appearances at the award show.
The Tourist. Classicky?
It’s a move like this that really lessens the credibility of the Golden Globes. In fact it’s getting harder to call the ceremony the Oscar predictor it once was. In its history, the Golden Globes has about a 58% success rate in picking the film that would later go on to win at the Oscars. However, I’ve noticed that the Golden Globe’s record has been skidding of late. In the last five years only one Golden Globe winner has taken the big prize at the Oscars.
It’s beginning to seem more obvious to me that the Golden Globe winners are based more on popularity rather than how good the film really is (take Avatar’s best picture win last year as an example). It is almost as if the films that did go on to win at the Oscars were just lucky coincidences.
What began as a critique of some puzzling nominations has resulted in a contemplation about whether or not the Golden Globes are worth paying attention to any longer. I still plan on watching the ceremony, though I am now more inclined to take the winners with a rather large grain of salt. Because if Burlesque wins…
Though I agree with you that the criteria for the comedy/musical category is messed up, and that the GG’s are likely just tossing out nominations to guarantee star power attendance (though i question why they thought they needed 2 nominations for Depp to show up), I don’t necessarily think it’s a completely awful thing.
The GG’s really needs to watch their step when they’re nominating Burlesque for anything, but in principle I don’t have any problem with them selecting a more popular range of movies for awards than the Oscars. One of the downfalls of the Oscars is the number of nominations of foreign, small, or limited release movies for big awards. When the nominations for Best Picture consist of 1 film I’ve seen and 4 films I’ve never heard of in languages I don’t understand, it’s easy to see how the public would lose interest, as indeed they have (a positive side effect of this is exposing people to excellent movies they might not know ever existed). And Oscar has realized this too (finally), which is why there are 10 nominations for best pic these days.
But let’s face it, “Best Picture” is a totally subjective and whimsical thing. How Shakespeare In Love (which I liked) beat Saving Private Ryan (which was provably awesome) for best picture in nineteen ninety whatever defies logical explanation. And if you came up to me and told me that Citizen Kane, a movie that regularly appears on critic’s Best Movie of All Times list is better than Avatar, I would punch you in the balls for saying silly things, b/c CK is so BORING to me. It’s his fucking sled (SPOILER ALERT), who the hell cares?
The most egregious example of Academy Award wankery is The Dark Knight, a film which kicked the shit out of the box office and was widely regarded as a triumph of film making by everyone with eyes, but which wasn’t even nominated for best picture in 2008. Do you know what was? Atonement, Michael Clayton, There Will Be Blood, No Country For Old Men (which won), and Juno. Atonement? Never saw it, looks boring. Michael Clayton was a good movie, well acted, but didn’t blow me away? And Juno, are you kidding me? I really liked Juno, but if it came down to a choice between Juno and Dark Knight for that nomination, I’d dropkick Juno right in her pregnant teenage belly to get her out of consideration (relax everyone: she is a fictional person).
There is an ENORMOUS disconnect between professional critics and regular movie watching people. Regular joes like being entertained by movies, while critics do their best to appreciate the art behind film making, and there is nothing more subjective and pretentious than art. You read reviews from some critics and it sounds more like an essay on the thematic weaknesses of the movie rather than an actual review of it. Seriously, I don’t care if this movie evokes meta comparisons to Fellini, I just want to know if it’s any damn good.
So, yeah, I’m okay with the Golden Globes adding a little balance to the award ceremony world by adding some more popular films that I have seen. When I watch the Oscars I’ll be on the lookout for films that went under my radar, but when I want to see movies I saw, heard of, and liked receive recognition, I’ll check out the Globes.
Fun fact: I wrote the above comment sans pantaloons.
Funny you would mention Atonement, since it was its Golden Globe win, which resulted in my watching the film (it’s actually quite good).
I can probably write an equally long response, however I will just summarize by saying that the Golden Globes always gave the appearance of being a “serious” awards show (unlike, say, the MTV Movie Awards). As such, having nominations that appeal to so-called “regular” movie viewers is confusing, since the Globes appear to be campaigning to the same class as the Oscars.
Oh, and Juno got nominated to meet that year’s “Indie Comedy” quota, ala Little Miss Sunshine, Sideways, etc. I except The Kid’s Are Alright to get that honour this year.
Ah, there’s 10 nominees for best picture now, the Academy can afford to nominate all kinds of stuff that has no chance in hell of winning to appease all types of audiences.
Though I didn’t intend it when I started writing my mini-essay response, I think my point ended up being that all awards shows are kinda bullshit anyway. I understand your disappointment in the GGs because now you feel you can’t take their accolades as seriously anymore, but personally I don’t think people should even take the Oscars very seriously. More like vague guidelines to quality rather than iron clad stamps of approval.