I wrote earlier this week that the Oscars are not corrupt. The Golden Globes, on the other hand, are — if you count the pique of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association… that group of locust refugees from Nathaniel West that gives the Golden Globes… as bona fide corruption. I learned this the hard way about fifteen yers ago, during my one brush with Hollywood award fame, when Enemies, A Love Story appeared. Angelica Huston, one of the stars of the movie, was invited to a lunch by the HFPA but demurred because she was busy shooting a film and didn’t feel she could take time off. Their members, who have a notoriously ambivalent attitude toward work, felt slighted. Result: no nomination for Angelica or for anybody connected with the film. The Academy gave us three. So if you watch or are watching the Golden Globes tonight, keep in mind this is more than the normal exercise in silliness. Perhaps this year too it will have less predictive value for the Oscars. The Academy is voting early, with nominating ballots due almost at the same time as the Golden Globes.
MEANWHILE: An election update somewhat more important than the Golden Globes.
Roger,
Have you reviewed Million Dollar Baby yet?
I saw The Aviator yesterday (based on your review) and now I’m intrigued by your comment concerning Easrwood’s direction. I thought Scorsese did a great job (along with DiCaprio doing his best work yet) and I’d really like to know where (or how?) you believe Eastwood surpassed him.
Roger:
The juxtaposition of the noble and brave comments about the Iraqi election in the comment section of ITM and the banality of the Golden Globes is exguisitly painfull. And the fact that the MSM will do a better job reporting on this award ceremony then they do on the Iraq election is just depressing.
I hope the elections in iraq come off without too much mayhem and as for the Golden Globes…who cares?
There are too many awards shows. After awhile it gets to be a drag seeing all these well dressed show offs patting each other on the back.
There’s how many Globes voters? 85, 90?
I like the globes significantly better than the Oscars on multiple levels:
1. They include television, which, with HBO, is better than most feature films these days.
2. They have the separate musical/comedy category, so that way there is at least some recognition for comedies, which are almost always overlooked at the oscars.
3. Though I have no idea who these people are, the HFPA seems to have a lot better taste than the Academy as a whole (not that that’s saying much). The winners there are generally far more valid.
I am very encouraged by the apparent enthusiasm of so many Iraqis for democracy. The future, knock on wood, looks very bright. Hosni Mubarak has even praised our efforts in Iraq. Which domino will be the next to fall?
I wonder how many of these award-show viewers and participants have been moaning about the unnecessary extravagance of Inauguration Week.
I remember watching the Golden Globes long before NBC snatched them and before cable TV existed in the form it does now. The program was never live; it was always on tape at 11:30 pm on a weekend night. It was never on a major broadcast station; I live in NY so I recall that it was always on WOR-TV channel 9 (yes, the same station that carried the Schaefer Circle of Sports with Win Elliot on Saturday nights and showed NY Ranger games). It was always my understanding during those years that if you did not show up to the award banquet, you just were not going to win.
Perhaps Roger can enlighten us; when did this preposterous awards program — controlled by a group of people of whom no one has heard and whose opinions about anything mean little to anyone — become so significant that it can grab a huge block of prime time TV time?
I admit, however, that I watch the preawards show to see if anyone’s dress falls off and the like.