2004 Golden Globes (1 Viewer)

[Mark-W]

Jeremy-

That is my gut feeling, too. And that historically, fantasy films are considered "popcorn flicks," with lots of carbs and no protien.

LOTR defies this by being both a fantasy epic and a drama that does touch us. (Look how many of us are reporting that we got tears in our eyes during the "You bow to no one" speech. How many of us have ever had tears well up in our eyes before during a "fantasy" film?)

So there is prejudice against this film trilogy because it is of a genre that is not widely regarded as one that earns best picture awards.

And Jackson's film history, as someone else mentioned, is one of films like Dead Alive and Meet The Feebles. He is also a self-taught filmmaker who loves sci-fi and scholck films, and I don't see those actors who think themselves "above it all" wanting to praise a filmmaker who wrote and directed a film with puppets that eat shit, and make pornos, and a walrus screws a pussy cat.

It would be like the Academy giving the award to a Troma filmmaker, and one who is proud of his previous work.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Seth,
You never know. The ego of an actor is a powerful thing, and actors are the largest voting bloc in the biz. Do I think it's a carefully constructed plot designed to demean LOTR? No. I never said that. It's simply a nudge. It's simply a tagline to sell Mystic River as a "people" movie, an "honest" movie. A "deserving" movie.

And I think many of you guys are crazy in your "Hollywood hates LOTR" stuff. It's not like PJ found the only few older actors that were LOTR nuts in Lee and McKellen and Holm.

I certainly didn't say that. I specified that it was a campaign schtick by ONE campaign. Ethan Hawke is a voting actor...he'll vote LOTR all the way down. He loves it. Plenty in the biz do, so I think it'll win or lose on it's own merits.

But that campaign is out there. It's not a smear attack, merely a paradigm.

Just my two cents,
Chuck

 

[Sean Laughter]

It would be like the Academy giving the award to a Troma filmmaker, and one who is proud of his previous work.

So are you implying Jackson should be ashamed of the films he's made prior to Lord of the Rings simply because they don't fit the general perception of what Hollywood and Academy people consider "worthy?"

 

[Mark-W]

Sean-

Not in the least. I love Meet The Feebles in particular, I am simply stating that Jackson's film history isnn't going to play well with many members of the Academy. That is not Jackson's problem, and I would be bummed if he acted anything other than proud of his early work...for all its "shlockiness," there is a lot of love in those films.

Mark

 

[Holadem]

Something that has been bugging me: it seems there is little respect in the industry for the HFPA. Why are the Golden Globes then considered such an important precursor of Oscars?

--
H

 

[Sean Cauley]

I think it's got to do with the high visibility, more than anything else. It's a big event with huge press coverage, moreso than SAG or any of the others (though a few of them are trying to catch up). Academy voters may not read every critics' ten-best list or check on every guild award, but a lot of them are probably watching the Globes in person or on television. It's the one that jogs peoples' memories and gives them an idea who others might be voting for.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Academy voters may not read every critics' ten-best list or check on every guild award, but a lot of them are probably watching the Globes in person or on television.

Exactly, the voters are going to start putting their ballots in and maybe all, some, none of them vote on merit alone. But assuming that at least some have contact with normal human emotions and influences, then image and advertising will affect their opinion somewhat.

Can you think of a more powerful advertisement for Lost in Translation than Bill Murray standing up on stage being recognized as a "Best Actor" and giving a fun speech that goes over well with the Hollywood audience. Only the film itself can promote itself any better than that.

It doesn't mean that influence is enough to change minds but it can push the close votes in a new direction.

Clips are being shown, actors from the films are up there looking good (or not), sounding good (or not), and reminding people of the existence of their film and what it was about. That's creating buzz within a captive audience directly.

And as I said above, its not like all of those HFPress people have no contact with the industry and aren't being influenced themselves by what people in Hollywood are saying. If you are trying to be legitimized you certainly don't want to strongly hold opinions contrary to the people you want to recognize you. So picking "their" favorites is one way of doing that.

I think the Globes are trying to balance the idea of fun with prestige as a way of distinguishing themselves as important yet different from the more stoic Oscars.

 

[Sean Cauley]

I, for one, look forward to watching the Globes each year more for the fun factor than the results of the voting. I know the HFPA is a small group, that their membership isn't as highbrow as the show's popularity leads you to believe, and that their track record gets a little freaky (like with the Pia Zadora incident). And I think certain of their categories are inane (like the ones that lump TV series, TV movie and TV miniseries supporting actors into one huge group). But the show's almost always going to be at least a little fun.

There's a mix of television and film talent in the same room. The nominees are seated around tables with their colleagues, instead of in stiff, cramped theatre seats; before the show and during breaks (and, more quietly, during the proceedings), natural conversations with more than two participants can break out, keeping the mood friendly and fun. Everyone is eating and/or drinking, and things get more relaxed. You have crazy moments like Ving Rhames bursting into tears and giving his award to another nominee, right in the middle of the event, or like Jack Nicholson talking out of his asshole Ace Ventura-style. It's generally an entertaining show, which is why I tune in.

I like the Oscars, too, but I tend to care more about the voting results there than I do at the Globes. There are fun moments (Adrien Brody, anyone?), but it's not as wild.