Golden Globe Nominations

For the films of 2013
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 2587
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Golden Globe Nominations

Postby Okri » Fri Dec 27, 2013 10:41 am

I don't know, BJ. While category fraud rarely makes AMPAS shirk, we've seen attempts in the past that have fallen by the wayside (Scarlett Johansson for Lost in Translation). I would assert that Roberts actually is more likely to falter due to category fraud because she is such a huge star. I don't know how much they changed the play, but onstage she's definitely a lead. I can see her missing a nomination because enough people feel she's a lead to siphon support.

But that Globe nomination surprises, simply because the Globes often push stars as lead simply to fill the leading categories - Marion Cotillard in Nine, Catherine Zeta-Jones in Chicago, Frances McDormand in Burn After Reading. It just happened to be an unusually rich year in the defined-as-comedy categories and they went for Greta Gerwig (not their MO at all).

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Golden Globe Nominations

Postby The Original BJ » Fri Dec 27, 2013 3:26 am

ksrymy wrote:The reason Julia Roberts is not going to be nominated for the Oscar is, looking back all the way until 1996, nearly every year, save for three or four, the HFPA has nominated 4 (or all 5 in the case where there were 6 nominees) Supporting Actress Oscar nominees while the final nominee has been a big name star; funny enough, Julia was one of the victims of this for Charlie Wilson's War.


I don't know if Julia Roberts is going to be nominated for the Oscar -- I think she's one of two or three names fighting for the last spots -- but I don't really see how this theory holds all that much weight. One could definitely argue that the Globes have a stronger propensity for nominating big stars, so Roberts's mention here might not be enough of a clue to her relative strength/weakness compared to the rest of the field. But "the big star nominated for the Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actress is always dropped" argument seems really flimsy to me. (In recent years, Shailene Woodley, Mila Kunis, and Emily Blunt have the been the ones left off the Oscar list, none of whom would qualify.) And plenty of big stars have made both lists.

I think if Roberts is not nominated it's because 1) August: Osage County isn't exciting people and 2) the category fraud makes people roll their eyes. But since 2) never happens, basically it would be because of 1). But today I'd bet that she's more likely to make it than not, honestly.

ksrymy
Adjunct
Posts: 1149
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:10 am
Location: Wichita, KS
Contact:

Re: Golden Globe Nominations

Postby ksrymy » Fri Dec 27, 2013 1:47 am

The reason Julia Roberts is not going to be nominated for the Oscar is, looking back all the way until 1996, nearly every year, save for three or four, the HFPA has nominated 4 (or all 5 in the case where there were 6 nominees) Supporting Actress Oscar nominees while the final nominee has been a big name star; funny enough, Julia was one of the victims of this for Charlie Wilson's War.
"Men get to be a mixture of the charming mannerisms of the women they have known." - F. Scott Fitzgerald

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7340
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Golden Globe Nominations

Postby Sabin » Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:43 pm

Did the bookie let somebody else do the odds for Best Actress in a Comedic or Musical Film, or is he just trying to willfully fuck with the pool by getting that one wrong. Not that I mind a Julie Delpy/Greta Gerwig showdown. I just wonder what year that's happening and for what films?
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

ksrymy
Adjunct
Posts: 1149
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:10 am
Location: Wichita, KS
Contact:

Re: Golden Globe Nominations

Postby ksrymy » Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:49 pm

Leto's going at 1/1 odds. Sounds right.

I'm also really excited for a Gerwig/Delpy showdown.
"Men get to be a mixture of the charming mannerisms of the women they have known." - F. Scott Fitzgerald

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15615
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Golden Globe Nominations

Postby Big Magilla » Sun Dec 15, 2013 4:04 am

“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” - Voltaire

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: Golden Globe Nominations

Postby Sonic Youth » Sat Dec 14, 2013 7:58 am

OscarGuy wrote:I don't quite understand why people are saying 12 Years a Slave is a difficult film. It's not. There's more heart-wrenching dynamic in Schindler's List. Not that I think 12 Years is a weak film, it's not. I just don't see why people are saying it's so difficult to watch.


It was for me. And I found 12 Years more heart-wrenching. SL's violence is epic and takes an outside-looking-in perspective. 12 Years' feels more (for lack of a better word) personal and is seen from the perspective of the oppressed.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Golden Globe Nominations

Postby The Original BJ » Fri Dec 13, 2013 7:00 pm

OscarGuy wrote:I don't quite understand why people are saying 12 Years a Slave is a difficult film. It's not. There's more heart-wrenching dynamic in Schindler's List. Not that I think 12 Years is a weak film, it's not. I just don't see why people are saying it's so difficult to watch.


I think what people mean is not that it's aesthetically difficult (certainly it's in a far more mainstream vein than Hunger or Shame), but just that some scenes are pretty emotionally hard to watch (especially the scene when Solomon is forced to whip Patsy). I don't know whether this factor helps its Oscar chances or hurts them -- if voters are looking to pick a movie that's very emotionally charged, then it helps, if they want something more crowd-pleasing, then it'll hurt. (In contrast, I think aesthetic difficulties -- even at a Tree of Life level -- would be a definite disadvantage.)

I didn't have a Must-Look-Away-From-the-Screen reaction to 12 Years, but I would understand if someone did. At the very least, it's obviously not a comforting movie. And I think that's what people mean when they describe it as difficult.

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12532
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Golden Globe Nominations

Postby OscarGuy » Fri Dec 13, 2013 6:39 pm

I don't quite understand why people are saying 12 Years a Slave is a difficult film. It's not. There's more heart-wrenching dynamic in Schindler's List. Not that I think 12 Years is a weak film, it's not. I just don't see why people are saying it's so difficult to watch.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Greg
Tenured
Posts: 2706
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Golden Globe Nominations

Postby Greg » Fri Dec 13, 2013 1:06 pm

The trailer for American Hustle gives me somewhat of a been-there-done-that vibe, in that it strikes me as a somewhat more comedic version of Goodfellas and the Godfather movies.
You can resist an invading army; you cannot resist an idea whose time has come.

Victor Hugo

User avatar
Eric
Tenured
Posts: 2722
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Golden Globe Nominations

Postby Eric » Fri Dec 13, 2013 11:53 am

Such is the insanity (inanity?) of awards season that I'm actually rooting for an American Hustle (which I didn't like) to usurp 12 Years (which I did).

But I'd obviously rather see Her come from behind and trounce everyone.

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7340
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Golden Globe Nominations

Postby Sabin » Fri Dec 13, 2013 11:47 am

Having seen it, I think it could absolutely win. It is an incredibly fun time…IF you find it to be fun. I have a few somewhat substantial problems with it that I wrote up rather hastily and longwindedly last week (mostly that the casting of the overrated Christian Bale means that he never quite has a meeting of the heart, mind, and soul of Amy Adams) but it's a total blast and I can see voters preferring it over 12 Years a Slave. It's your late December ticket. I could also see The Director's Guild honoring David O. Russell over Steve McQueen just because he's bending over backwards to save his career and be pleasant at party. He was at the Q&A after the screening and he's very Martin Scorsese in "Marty's Time" mode.

The real reason why it could totally win though is Argo. If the superficial but fairly engaging Argo can be taken wholly seriously, so can American Hustle.
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

User avatar
Eric
Tenured
Posts: 2722
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Golden Globe Nominations

Postby Eric » Fri Dec 13, 2013 11:39 am

True. This will be the first nomination for both McQueen and Cuaron, whereas Payne and Russell will be well-seasoned now.

Not that being rookies hurt Tom Hooper or Michel Hazanavicius any.

FilmFan720
Tenured
Posts: 3449
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Golden Globe Nominations

Postby FilmFan720 » Fri Dec 13, 2013 11:34 am

I've been saying for quite a while that American Hustle could be a force to be reckoned with, if only because it fits in with the recent trend of Best Picture winners. Our recent slate have been all out entertainments (The Artist) or treatments of serious subjects done in a more palatable entertaining mode (Argo, The Kings Speech). Even The Hurt Locker tackled its subject in action movie mode. It has been a while since we've had a Best Picture Winner that didn't go down easily (I'm not saying this in terms of quality, but the way in which the film challenges the audience). What was the last "difficult" Best Picture winner, in the terms that 12 Years a Slave is difficult to view: Schindlers List? Maybe you could count No Country for Old Men, although that is pretty firmly in the thriller genre... Sight unseen, American Hustle fits much more with Argo and The Kings Speech than any ofnenother contenders.

And don't brush off the fact that they are going to push David O Russell as an "overdue" filmmaker, and that sentiment always goes a long way...
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.

User avatar
Eric
Tenured
Posts: 2722
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Golden Globe Nominations

Postby Eric » Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:54 am

Here's one unimpressed take on American Hustle, for what it's worth.

American Hustle is a film that is very engaging in parts, and full of lively performances. Also a film that is incredibly sloppy and practically incoherent and not even close, by any objective or quasi-objective standard of directing or any other aspect of filmmaking, to being the best any-kind-of-movie released in 2013.


http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some ... w-qed.html


Return to “86th Predictions and Precursors”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest