Very well then. I will decide the movie theme for the weekend after next. I already have some very good ideas, and to boot, I found not one but two movies for Bad Movie Night in April. They promise to be of comparable quality to last year's entries.
Confession time: I didn't watch all of The Golden Globes last night. In fact, I didn't watch much of the show. Admittedly, I had better things to do, including watching Wings of Desire, but that's not really why I sat most of the event out. Strange as it may be for a film buff to take little interest in the first big award show, I have a perfectly reasonable explanation.
People usually take two positions on the Golden Globes: 1) it's a fun precursor to the Academy Awards where Hollywood types are encouraged to cut loose a little more, or 2) it's a sham, because the Hollywood Foreign Press Association have no actual credentials and their selections for winners are somehow linked to the amount of time they can spend with the stars. To a lesser degree, there are those who watch the show for fashion, like The Emmys, Grammys, or Academy Awards.
I am none of those. I've read the history of the Hollywood Foreign Press, but let's be honest here and not pretend that any awards show, including The Academy Awards, doesn't also appear dubious at times. So that's not really a factor in whether I tune in or not. Over the last few years, I've become increasingly burned out on "award season" and trying to guess who will win and who won't. For that, I turn to Neil because he loves it so. I find predicting the winner and justifying it for yourself is about as good as a coin flip, and in the past few years of Oscar Nights, most people go about 50/50 in predictions.
Strangely, it's not a matter of "Hollywood patting itself on the back", which some also decry. To be fair, awards season is a little self serving, and what I did see last night certainly reinforced that assertion, but Tinsel Town is far from the only club of millionaires giving each other props. Seriously, go check out the awards given at the end of the Football season, to draw a comparison to Big Fan.
I think maybe the reason I don't find The Golden Globes interesting is the same reason I find the new Oscar rules so underwhelming: everything gets in. The Globes maximize star power by having separate dramatic and comedy/musical categories, in addition to including television. The Academy Awards recently expanded the "Best Picture" category from five to ten films. This is great, with regard to getting the word out on fine films from the past year, but does it honestly change the fact that one movie is always going to be crowned "the Winner", and in all likelihood something released VERY recently?
To wit: Avatar took Best Picture (Drama) and Best Director. It's been out for what, a month? Nothing against Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart (I love me some Jeff Bridges) and Robert Downey Jr. in Sherlock Holmes (I am well documented in my support of RDJ), but Sherlock Holmes opened on Christmas and Crazy Heart isn't even playing wide yet. I'm genuinely torn about Up in the Air edging out Inglourious Basterds for best screenplay, not only because both are excellent films, but I can't help but think that Up in the Air being a little more recent than August had something to do with the win. Still, love the movie.
The Hangover was a surprise to me, until I saw the competition. Not to slight The Hangover in any way, and I'd love to see the Academy actually nominate something so wantonly dirty for their Best Picture, but it's the one win that really broke the trend. There were a lot of movies not nominated at all that should have been, and that brings me to the other source of ennui for "awards season".
Sony Pictures is making no effort whatsoever to push Moon back into the eyes of awards voters. This is bad for Moon, because I think it's a fantastic film, but also speaks to the nature of what films tend to show up in January and February: ones with big pushes by the studio. If a movie can't afford to have the Weinsteins behind it (or comparable studio support), it disappears from consideration in what should be a celebration of the finest films of the prior year.
If you look at many online "top ten" lists - including the blogorium's - you won't see many of those movies introduced by an A-Lister come March. And I just don't like that, because the best thing Hollywood can do for itself is champion quality films for audiences hungry for them. That's not to speak ill of The Hurt Locker, Up in the Air, Inglourious Basterds, Julie & Julia, The Informant!, or Avatar. I'm just surprised that A Serious Man, Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans, District 9, and Thirst didn't get more love. Or even Big Fan, which features a fantastic performance from Patton Oswalt. Half of them had one nomination or less.
So yeah, I didn't watch much of The Golden Globes. What I did watch irritated me, and if all the best films of the year come out in December, why is it the rest of us see so many great ones between January and November?
Although, I have to say, Christoph Waltz: Best Supporting Actor. Called that. He owns that category in the Oscars to boot, as far as I'm concerned. Even if you liked nothing else about Inglourious Basterds (and I'd be bummed that you didn't), it's hard to say he didn't rock Landa.
No comments:
Post a Comment