« There Will Be Fighting | Main | 20 Weeks - Damaged Frontal Globe »
December 13, 2007
The Quick Version
The Globes, as usual, found a way to discount their significance.
Not only did they choose 7 dramas to reward with nominations, they didn’t give a Best Drama nod to The Diving Bell & The Butterfly after rewarding it in the far more competitive – 5 nods instead of 12 – categories of writing and directing. (See: Munich)
ADD - But wait!!! As noted below... and completely forgotten by me at 5:30a... Diving Bell and Kite weren't eligible for Best Picture. Which makes that better... and the choice of 7 even more stupid.
Also oddly missing from the top slot were Into The Wild and The Kite Runner, while Tony Angelotti and Nadia Bronson once again showed that they can feed foreigners like no one else! (Karen Fried had a great morning too, as she got all she could ask for from Atonement and Eastern Promises to boot.)
On a personal level, the group made some choices that made me smile and made the Lunch With David batting average even better – watch for the James McAvoy chat later today or tomorrow. But nice as that is, in spite of some whiners, I don’t think that any of this has anything to do with feeding my ego or pleasure centers.
PS 6:50a - Nearly 90 minutes after the announcements, the HFPA website still has not loaded a complete list of nominees... so that the song nominees are nowhere to be found on the web.
AND PSS - USA Today gets up the songs and full list first... ahead of trades, HFPA, or any websites.
EDITED: 6:27a
Posted by poland at December 13, 2007 06:06 AM
Comments
I didn't think that the Golden Globes allowed foreign films in their Best Film categories (see: Letters from Iwo Jima last year) unless they changed that. It's a weird rule considering they allow those films to be eligible for other categories, just not Best Film.
Posted by: djk813
at December 13, 2007 06:22 AM
DOH!!!!
You are so right.
The perils of 5am
Posted by: David Poland
at December 13, 2007 06:27 AM
How many people are going to be upset that John Travolta got a supporting actor nomination, but Hal Holbrook didn't?
Posted by: adorian
at December 13, 2007 06:39 AM
Fewer than will be upset that Casey Affleck did and Holbrook didn't.
Posted by: David Poland
at December 13, 2007 06:51 AM
lol, 7 dramas. It has to be some sort of joke.
Posted by: waterbucket
at December 13, 2007 06:59 AM
I don't think there was a three-way tie for the 5 spot with Best Picture, but it's possible that 7 films all received a certain amount of votes above the rest of the field, and that the number was small enough for them to say, "well, it's a virtual tie so let's just add them in". I can't see it as starfucking or trying to appease various marketers/studios, because why wouldn't they have done this before? I think they should be applauded for recognizing Eastern Promises, for one thing.
And DP, you're in no position to criticize them on this point when your own organization goes so far as to whore itself out so it has a Best Picture field of 10 (and STILL has a separate Comedy and Family film category), unless you're going to publicly rail against them as well.
Posted by: lazarus
at December 13, 2007 07:15 AM
They're trying to become the HFPA! (I kid, I kid). That seven nominees thing is ridiculous. Such is the perils of small memberships, I suppose.
Holbrook really shouldn't be upset. He didn't really do much.
I did really good on my predictions with 5/5 or 4/5 in almost all categories, bar the music ones - I did correctly predict they'd nominate Clint Eastwood again, though!
I also predicted bad luck for Into the Wild (although that'll surely be like Crash in 2005, no love at the globes, big love at the Academy) and Once (not even a song nomination!). Predicted John C Reilly too.
But you'll, of course, make a belittling comment and flush away my pleasant mood. Good thing I'm going to bed now (it's 2:15am).
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0
at December 13, 2007 07:17 AM
I can't believe "The Great Debaters" got a Best Picture slot but "Into the Wild" didn't....duh!!!!!!!!
...Or that "ITW"'s only nomination came in the Best Song category (deserved, yes, but so were the film, Penn, Hirsch, Holbrook and Keener).
Relieved to see "TWBB" get a BP slot, however, even if PT Anderson got screwed out of a B. Director nomnation.
And how the **** did Blanchett and Foster get nominated over Laura Linney in "The Savages"? (Nice that PS Hoffman got nominated twice, though.)
"Debaters" won the Producer Guild's Stanley Kramer award; how appropriate.
Methinks that's the only industry-sanctioned award this creaky, abysmally edited "message movie" is going to win...unless Oprah starts her own awards show just to honor her movie.
The "Mad Men" nominations were cool, though, since it's the best non-HBO dramatic series on television.
Posted by: movieman
at December 13, 2007 07:32 AM
Re: The Great Debaters - The Globes love movie stars. Denzel is a movie star first and foremost, and directed the film. That's got to be the only reason why he could wrangle nominations for the movie as well as the mind-blowingly mediocre American Gangster (Ridley Scott? Are you SERIOUS?)
Either way, not worth getting worked up about.
Posted by: MarkVH
at December 13, 2007 07:44 AM
The Savages was categorized as a comedy, so Linney got pushed out of the far more competitive Actress in a Musical or Comedy race. She might have had a better chance over Foster or Blanchett in the drama heat.
Posted by: Rob
at December 13, 2007 07:44 AM
Sweet that some of you still harbor the illusion that the movies and not the consultants who specialize in delivering Globes noms are the key to the seven...
Posted by: David Poland
at December 13, 2007 07:49 AM
Can I just take a moment to say how fucking Blah the TV nominees are?
Posted by: bobbob911
at December 13, 2007 08:17 AM
Only if I can take a moment to say I'm glad Roger Clements took steroids while he was with the Yankess, and not while he was with the Astros.
Posted by: Joe Leydon
at December 13, 2007 08:22 AM
The fact that "The Savages" was in the "comedy or musical" category instead of "drama" speaks volumes about the Globes, doesn't it?
Oh yeah, I totally believe that the "GD" nomination was typical GG sucking-up-to-the-movie-stars b.s. (Denzel, Jodie and Blanchett's--for "Elizabeth" at least; she deserved her "INT" nod--acting nominations were just more of the same.)
Did Ridley Scott really get nominated as Best Director??? Yikes; I somehow managed to miss that.
Posted by: movieman
at December 13, 2007 08:37 AM
Funniest nomination?
Shakira's song from "Love in the Time of Cholera."
Star-____ing again, eh?
Posted by: movieman
at December 13, 2007 08:41 AM
Yes, but you have to admit: Some stars are more -------able than others
Posted by: Joe Leydon
at December 13, 2007 08:52 AM
Movieman, I often feel that the Globes go too far the other way -- I remember About Schmidt being categorized as a "drama" purely because (I assume) they wanted to put Nicholson in with the other acting heavyweights as he would be in the Oscar race, rather than a lighter category. I remember Nicholson saying something to the effect of, gee, I thought we made a comedy. If I remember correctly, Sideways got the same treatment ... hmm, so maybe it's just Alexander Payne's movies. Still, I remember hearing complaints that some of this year's movies -- Darjeeling, Margot at the Wedding -- would be considered in the comedy category, and I remember thinking, but aren't those movies actually comedies, albeit "serious" ones? If you're going to categorize anything with even remotely serious bits as a drama, you can eliminate pretty much anything but the broadest of broad. So in that sense, I don't think it's ridiculous to put The Savages in the "comedy" category.
Posted by: jesse
at December 13, 2007 09:37 AM
"Funniest nomination?
Shakira's song from "Love in the Time of Cholera."
Star-____ing again, eh?"
But are there really that many original songs in movies today?
Posted by: brack
at December 13, 2007 10:21 AM
I almost want Jodie to win just to see if she uses the P word in her speech ("partner," that is, not the other one).
Posted by: Rob
at December 13, 2007 10:23 AM
Does this mean that if "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" or "Lion in Winter" had been released in 2007, they would have been classified as comedies?
Posted by: adorian
at December 13, 2007 10:43 AM
Amen Joe, Amen.
For some reason, I can't get excited about the Golden Globes. Is it relevant anymore?
Posted by: pchu
at December 13, 2007 11:04 AM
So we can look forward to seeing the consultants' names listed in the next Gurus of Gold update? "Karen Fried had a good year but the Academy feels that Tony Angelotti is overdue" or something like that?
Posted by: jeffmcm
at December 13, 2007 11:15 AM
So DP, if the consultants are responsible for the 7 noms, and not the films, as you say, why didn't this happen last year, or the year before? It's not as if this game is new? Why aren't there 7 Comedy/Musical noms, then?
I'm certainly cynical to an extent about this group (though I'll remind everyone that they nominated Mulholland Dr and The Man Who Wasn't There for Best Picture), but they're not a bunch of tasteless fiends. I still feel that over the last 10 years, their choices are just as legitimate (if not more) than the Academy. And let's not forget, it was AMPAS who blinked and gave Best Picture to Crash, when the HFPA had no problem recognizing Brokeback.
Posted by: lazarus
at December 13, 2007 11:38 AM
I know these things are silly, but really have to wonder aloud why HBO's The Wire gets no love when it comes to awards.
Posted by: Armin Tamzarian
at December 13, 2007 12:14 PM
"But are there really that many original songs in movies today?"
Le Festin?
Posted by: ployp
at December 13, 2007 12:28 PM
They also have 7 nominees for TV Actress Drama and all are well-known...and so the starf__king goes on. Glad to see Michael C. Hall in there for Dexter but the dull tv nominees goes to show how bad network tv series are right now. Why include Edie Falco and nothing else for The Sopranos?
Posted by: Lynch Van Sant
at December 13, 2007 12:32 PM
No love for "Extras"? I'm glad it got two noms...
Posted by: Kambei
at December 13, 2007 12:35 PM
Dave,
I'm not trying to sound Snarky, but, The Hot Button hasn't been updated in three weeks. Is that column Ghandi?
I ask, because if it's not going to continue and this is now your main forum, I'm gonna delete it as one of my start-up tabs on my Mozilla. Need all the bandwith I can get, etc...
Posted by: THX5334
at December 13, 2007 12:40 PM
"Le Festin?"
Exactly, not many.
Posted by: brack
at December 13, 2007 01:11 PM
USA Today wasn't first with the song nods. I forget where I saw them earlier this morning (around 6:30), but it wasn't there.
Posted by: Kristopher Tapley
at December 13, 2007 01:23 PM
The Golden Compass & Beowulf=ZERO critics awards or nominations.
Elizabeth: The Golden Age=ZERO critics awards, 2 nominations for Blanchett.
Ian Sinclair=Missing for over a week.
Coincidence?
Posted by: lazarus
at December 13, 2007 01:32 PM
Rob wrote : "I almost want Jodie to win just to see if she uses the P word in her speech ("partner," that is, not the other one)."
What other one? P*s*y? I'd prefer that actually.
Too bad about Linney though. It's gotta sting that PSH gets one.
The Globes broadcast is going to be horrible anyway, I doubt any of the liberal actors (all of 'em right?) are gonna show up to cross the WGA pickets.
Posted by: Andrew
at December 13, 2007 02:29 PM
Hey Lazarus, let us not forget that whats-his-name also predicted awards love (a best pic nomination!) for Love in the Time of Cholera.
Posted by: Armin Tamzarian
at December 13, 2007 05:12 PM
Yeah. Hopefully the shame will be enough for him to never come back here, although I imagine he'd just take on another pseudonym because he can't get enough of his trolling ways.
Posted by: lazarus
at December 13, 2007 05:41 PM
Yawn! This awards season is just so hard to get excited about. I am the awards nut around my circle of friends, endlessly talking about who won what, blah blah blah. I just can't get excited this year? Why is that? The only real awards contenders I have made an effort to see is Into the Wild and Hairspray. I almost made it to Eastern Promises, but alas no. I watched Enchanted but I never saw that as an awards contender. I thought Ratatouille was boring. I am excited about Sweeney Todd, though, and curious about There Will Be Blood. What's going on here? I am usually hyped to see these films. Is the marketing department failing these films? If you can't motivate a die hard movie buff, how can you motivate the general hard-to-please public?
Posted by: JohnBritt
at December 13, 2007 06:23 PM
Ebert states that Juno's screenplay is "uncommonly intelligent." The rottentomatoes rating, out of 110 total reviews, is 94%. Is Cody just the recipient of excessive hype, or is it possible that the vast majority of critics out there truly believe that she has written an excellent screenplay? Nicol?
Posted by: Stella's Boy
at December 14, 2007 01:06 PM
"How many people are going to be upset that John Travolta got a supporting actor nomination, but Hal Holbrook didn't?"
Travolta, the one weak link in the picture, is bad enough, but not nominating Dano for TWBB is a genuine crime.
Posted by: Cadavra
at December 15, 2007 11:27 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)