OK, I watched about 15 minutes of Golden Globes.....are all these people just mean drunks or are they on drugs?
All I seem to hear was insults and even Anne Hathaway sounded like a babbling idiot when she got her award.
Are the oscars going to be this uncouth? Imagine someone saying that all a certain person needed to do to loose 25 lbs
would be to "go to the bathroom"?????????????????????
and... World Peace!
Golden Globes has drinking going on the whole time, and it's a little looser than the Oscars.
For the most part it's been good - with a few exceptions. That being said, the speeches have been lame this year.
Except for Kevin Costner's gracious speech about the Golden Globes in general and how they call attention to movies that everyone might not know about, and how they have honored great actors through the years. I was so impressed with him. Between this and the lovely eulogy he delivered at Whitney Houston's funeral, he sure knows how to say the right thing at the right moment.
I don't like the crude humor either, Chris. I have a very low tolerance for that sort of thing, and it's not a function of age with me, because I never enjoyed it. Ugh, Sasha Baron Cohen. Why does he have to have the same name as such a wonderful skater. I may have mentioned before that my idea of a funny line is Noel Coward's "Isn't that the Grand Duchess Olga under the piahh-no?" I did like Claire Danes' speech, and I liked Jennifer Lawrence's. And here's Hugh Jackman, who's being wonderful.
I did love the way that Jennifer Garner was a presenter just after her husband Ben Affleck gave his speech, and she started by saying, "Ben forgot to thank two people and asked me to mention their names for him." I'm really glad Ben Affleck won, by the way. He's become such an interesting director, and he was not nominated for an Oscar.
and... World Peace!
Definitely Welcome Back! Ben!
Jodie Foster's speech could've been much more moving had it made sense - but her dress was amazing.
Not happy with Lincoln being locked out of winning anything...
Yeah, I wasn't sure about what Jodie was saying either, but she always looks stunning. I know she's very smart, but I think she tends to resort to what I call newspeak. Maybe she's trying to say nothing revealing, but it just comes across as incoherent.
I was sorry that Lincoln didn't win anything, though it's hard to begrudge Ben Affleck and Argo their victories. At least Daniel Day-Lewis won. I thought his tribute to screenwriter Tony Kushner was beautiful: that he misses having Kushner's wonderful language to use now that he's finished filming.
One interesting thing: the real Tony Mendez came out to introduce the movie Argo. This guy is a true American hero, and I was as moved to see him onstage as I had been in the Oscars years ago when they introduced real Miep Gies, the Dutch resistance worker who helped hide Anne Frank. Interesting that he's such a small man, because Ben Affleck, who played him in the film, is about six-four. You can do that with a non-famous person; you don't have to go for a physical resemblance. But this one was pretty egregious.
I am trying hard to see one reason why Anne would beat Sally in any honest judging of acting quality of these two performances....perhaps people are swayed by the emotionalism of "I dreamed a dream". Not saying Anne was bad....but she is no Sally.
Both Daniel and Hugh are class acts....
On the red carpet, Clooney said he was not going to drink until after he finished presenting.
Originally Posted by Tonichelle
I recall other years where it was quite apparent that some of the winners (even those not speaking) on stage over indulged.
Also, sometimes the winner really didn't expect to win and was, therefore, mentally unprepared to give an acceptance speech. Don't forget, they are being lauded for performing the words of others. These aren't awards for someone who expresses personal thought/opinions regularly.
I do agree that the speeches were generally boring - everyone just listing out people involved in the project and their families. Frankly, just say 'Thank you' and move off the stage if you are going to do that. Makes it boring, but at least it gets the show moving.
EW seems to say Anne made a nice speech. I didn't see it, but I did see her on stage when les Mis won Best Musical/Comedy. Were you referring to that part as babbling?
Originally Posted by CoyoteChris
A ''Dream'' Come True
Anne Hathaway is basically the anti-Jennifer Lawrence, so if you're prone to eye-rolling at utter earnestness, move on to the next slide. That said, even the hardest of hearts had to admire her smart acceptance speech. She called her Best Supporting Actress award ''This lovely, blunt object that I will forevermore use as a weapon against self-doubt.'' Better yet, Hathaway paid tribute to fellow nominee Sally Field for ''being a vanguard against typecasting. As the girl who started out as the princess of Genovia, I can't tell you how encouraging it was that The Flying Nun grew up to be Norma Rae and grew up to be Mama Gump and grew up to be Mary Todd Lincoln.'' EW's own Oscar expert Anthony Breznican deemed the shout-out''very good Oscar strategy. Frontrunners stay frontrunners by staying humble.'' It was a glorious bit of dues-paying (and we'll only dock a few points for her stage storming during Les Mis' Best Picture, Comedy or Musical, win to thank her agent).
We were talking about the GG's at the office (of course), and we arrived at the conclusion that because these awards are so much less formal—smaller venue, everyone eating (and drinking!)—that as a result sometimes the people on stage think of themselves as chatting to their buddies in the audience. They get a little self-indulgent about things like running up to the mike and saying, "By the way!" The awards have a completely different vibe from the Oscars.
I liked both Hathaway's and Lawrence's speech, and considering how hard these folks work on their films (didn't Hathaway starve herself?), I think they have a right to be earnest past my eye-rolling point. I loved Hathaway's shout-out to Sally Field, when she spoke "as the princess of Genovia." I think Hathaway seems to have a more enthusiastic personality in general than Lawrence, from what I've seen and read. But they both did end up thanking their mommies. (Hey, I'd thank mine!) As for everyone thanking their agents, their publicists, and their manicurists, I used to get really bored with it, but I realize that this is their moment to share the spotlight with a lot of people whose names are unknown to the larger world, who don't get public awards, so I read a few pages of my whodunit and am zen about it.
Last edited by Olympia; 01-14-2013 at 03:21 PM.
Missing Tdizzle and SDiggity
Although I did not see the Globes this year, I generally have no problem with winners who rush to give thanks individually to a list of valuable colleagues and family whose names are completely unrecognizable to me. I think it is very gracious and appropriate for winners in the spotlight to acknowledge those who contributed to her/his success. If I were a person being thanked for my hard work in an otherwise "invisible" capacity (or a loved one of someone being thanked), I would be extremely appreciative for the tip of the hat.
Originally Posted by heyang
After all, the Globes and the Oscars are industry awards -- and in that sense are much the same as awards presented at local banquets of insurance associations or Little Leagues or whatever.
The only difference is that the Globes and the Oscars have become TV spectacles because so many Americans (and viewers in other countries) are obsessed with celebrities, esp. from show biz.
(BTW, some nominees believe that they will jinx themselves by preparing a speech in advance.)
Originally Posted by heyang
I think (but am not sure) that the pre-Oscar screenings and DVDs (and VHS tapes before that) were/are paid for by the movie studios -- as opposed to the Academy (or SAG, in the case of the SAG awards).
Originally Posted by Olympia
It wouldn't surprise me if a few private screenings still are held for Academy members -- with the hope that they will opt to see a movie in all its glory on a full-sized theater screen, instead of something smaller at home. Going back to the days of VHS, studios have been concerned that tapes [or now DVDs] do not show Academy members the movie at its best, although they were/are a convenient way to capture more eyeballs.
Back in the day, pre-Oscar screenings for Academy members were offered not only in LA, but also in NYC -- e.g., at the Directors Guild theater.
And movie studios used to send megabucks on intensive promotional campaigns targeting Academy members before the nominations and the final voting for Oscars. (Example: huge, glossy advertising spreads in Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and other trades.)
In some cases, individual nominees or potential nominees whose studios did not campaign on their behalf even would spend money out of their own pockets for campaigning on their own. Melissa Leo won her Oscar after conducting and funding her own campaign. I am not saying that her performance was not worthy -- only that she had to really, really believe in herself.
I think the Academy eventually cracked down and tried to place some restrictions on the over-the-top studio campaigns.
One other note: Am not 100% sure, but did or does the Academy not have a rule that members can vote only in the categories for which they themselves would be eligible?
For example, only cinematographers vote(d) for Best Cinematography; only costume designers vote(d) for Best Costumes; etc.
The exception was/is that all Academy members vote for Best Picture.
For Best Foreign Film, the rules were/are especially strict, with a requirement that voters see every nominated picture. (But I don't know how that is/was enforced.)
and... World Peace!
Some awards "shows" give the winner a heads up before the night of. I don't remember which ones, but once you find out stuff like that, you don't get as excited about the speeches.
Golden411: I do believe you are correct about people voting only within their categories + best picture.
I know that they've attempted to have people watch all the nominations, but if someone is actively working, would they have time to view up to 10 movies (just for best picture - the max # that can be nominated) that are usually at least 2 or more hours long each. Heck, I don't work in the industry and I do have free time, but I don't even get to the theater to see many movies and even when I'm home, I seldom watch movies via DVD because I find myself doing other things while watching the movie. So, I can't imagine watching that many movies in the time between the announcement of the nominees to the voting deadline. ...and there's my problem that there are some movies that I just don't want to watch - although an Oscar nom might give me 2nd thoughts.
I do believe that studio's also re-release movies into theaters closer to Oscar time to remind the Academy that the film was out there - especially if it was released earlier in the year and the studio feels that it was Oscar worthy.
I imagine it must take quite a bit of commitment to do the job thoroughly, watching all those movies: fifteen if you do it right (the five in your category and the ten or so best pictures). But I've had friends who have had all-day marathons watching an entire season of, say, The Tudors. Maybe a two-day stint with a notebook and lots of coffee is the way to go about it.