The Golden Globes

If Fergie gets wet, she melts

I used to respect the Golden Globes for being one of the only organizations in the back-slapping business to recognize comedies, as they are universally ignored by the Academy, critics, etc.

However, comedies are no longer what they once were and last night it was impossible to shake the sense of foreboding as we head into the first-ever 10-Best-Picture-nominee-Oscar ceremony.

Even though I can't think of movies that should replace them in the list of ten, every time I heard 500 Days of Summer and It's Complicated mentioned last night--which happened surprisingly often--I felt something verging on offense.

THOSE ARE NOT MOVIES THAT SHOULD BE MENTIONED DURING AWARD CEREMONIES!

Okay, got that out of my system. Thanks.


I loved Ricky Gervais' monologue, as well as several other moments he had throughout the night--especially his jab at Steve Carell (who clearly did not enjoy it, although he tried to play it off with a successful 'I will break you' joke) and the American Office. I wish the producers had given Ricky more screentime than the presenters, which is always the mark of an excellent host.

I haven't seen Avatar yet, but from what I hear it's a worthwhile and important contribution to filmmaking. Is it the Best Picture of the Year? I don't know, maybe...I mean...I can't think of anything that came out this year that I loved, so it's a pretty easy year for a movie like that to come out. Nonetheless, I find it odd that the script is not nominated, none of the actors are nominated, and yet the movie is nominated for Best Picture and James Cameron is nominated for Best Director.

This has always been the reason animated films are rarely nominated for Best Picture (the only one so far is Beauty and the Beast in 1991) and their directors never nominated for Best Director.

Exhibit A: In 2004, The Incredibles was nominated for Best Animated Feature and Brad Bird was nominated for Best Screenplay--yet Brad Bird was not even mentioned as a possibility for Best Director. Ditto in 2007 for Ratatouille. Why not?

He cares for Haiti. And destroying the competition.

Enter James Cameron and suddenly things are different. Why? Because the animated characters have some motion capture elements to them? I fail to see the real difference here...

Last year's Oscars, in a very weak year for movies, were yet another early indicator of the low times ahead of us. Slumdog Millionaire was just so damn popular with the Sideways Set that it won Best Picture and Best Director despite being far from the best in either category (I would have chosen Let the Right One In, Frost/Nixon, or even Vicky Cristina Barcelona, and the associated directors). Wall-E was universally loved, but was not even nominated for Best Picture or Best Director. As much as I respect David Fincher (due to Fight Club and The Game) Benjamin Button sucked, yet it seemed like he was nominated because they weren't sure who else to put in there. Too bad James Cameron didn't direct Wall-E, eh?


As for this year, I liked Up in the Air more than I care to admit (maybe because I'm a bit of a loner myself and I love an unhappy ending), Precious was good but not rave-worthy, A Single Man looks great but not perfect (and nobody will see it anyway, since it's only in 1 theater in LA County and zero theaters throughout the heartland), ditto for The White Ribbon...A Serious Man was a disappointment...Crazy Heart blew...

Maybe the Oscars should just give this year a miss? Thoughts?

Question for The Academy:
If the only movie that came out this year was the worst movie anybody had ever seen, would it still win Best Picture? Or would you all abstain and leave an asterisk in the record books, as if this was the year of the big bad war that distracted us too much to participate in such diversions?

Please let me know by Friday--it will greatly impact what I think of you.

_