Golden Globes

[heyang]

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.

[Olympia]

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.

[golden411]

True that taking voting responsibilities seriously means that Academy (or Hollywood Foreign Press) members must devote time to seeing the movies.

But if a voter feels that watching some of the top films of the year is too onerous, then I think she or he has chosen the wrong occupation.
Anyone in any profession (law enforcement, aviation, agriculture, you name it) should have an inherent interest in the latest developments in the field -- as well as a natural desire to gain knowledge, perspective, and inspiration from best practices and the state of the art.

Consider how much commitment it takes to stay on top of a relentless stream of advances published in scholarly literature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is not exactly light reading, for instance.
And I imagine that attorneys have to spend endless hours digesting new Supreme Court opinions and other case law -- simply to stay current in general (and not because such "homework" is necessarily of direct relevance to their clients at the moment).
Any type of job no doubt has comparable examples.

On the other hand, keeping tabs on the motion picture industry means watching movies intended to be entertaining to general audiences. Not saying that it always is 100% enjoyable, but it does not sound overly burdensome to me.

[heyang]

[QUOTE=golden411;698142]True that taking voting responsibilities seriously means that Academy (or Hollywood Foreign Press) members must devote time to seeing the movies.

But if a voter feels that watching some of the top films of the year is too onerous, then I think she or he has chosen the wrong occupation.
Anyone in any profession (law enforcement, aviation, agriculture, you name it) should have an inherent interest in the latest developments in the field -- as well as a natural desire to gain knowledge, perspective, and inspiration from best practices and the state of the art.

[\QUOTE]


It's not neccessarily a burden to watch 6- 15 movies over the course of a year, but it would be in the short time between the announcement of the nominations and when voting is due, especially if the person is in the middle of a project and has other professional and personal obligations. An actor/director/producer could be filming on location - in the evenings (if they aren't shooting late into the night) usually means studying lines for the next day and/or reviewing footage - squeezing in some time to eat and rest and talk with family. Not much time to watch a 3 hr movie that day, etc. If an actor's on a promotional tour, they have appointments throughout the day and evening - again free time for eating, resting and catching up with friends and family.

I enjoy movies and I really don't watch very many over the course of the year. Even then, there are some nominated movies that don't interest me very much. I'm sure they are beautiful movies, but not much storyline appeal. LOL - I recall a group of us going to see The English Patient - there were 8 of us. With the exception of 1 person, all of us fell asleep for at least a few minutes. I appreciated the beauty of the movie, etc, but I was a bit tired and the movie was 'slow'. My cousin slept the longest - after the movie, he wanted to know who the old guy was..... we were all in our 20's back then.

[Olympia]

>giggle<

That reminds me of what I did when watching Barry Lyndon, Stanley Kubrick's exquisite...very exquisite...soooo exquisite...too, too exquisite film set in the eighteenth century. I've never seen such costumes. After about an hour of somnolent characters drifting around exquisitely, I had a little war with myself about whether, after I'd invested all this time in the movie, I should stay around for the plot to start. After awhile, as people onscreen drifted around some more, I gave up and left. This is the only movie I can remember walking out of ever. I guess I couldn't be a member of the Academy, because there are movies I simply couldn't watch all the way through. My tastes are not broad enough.

[senatormls]

I'm just sad to hear that 'Kon-Tiki' lost to Austria's 'Amour.' It would've been Norway's first ever foriegn language film prize and a victory over Denmark!! VERRRRY interesting that AAH-nold gave the GG to Austria. HMMM....

[Olympia]

Amour is doing really well in terms of critical praise here, and I fear that it will take over the Oscars. I think it got nominations for Best Actress, Picture, and Director, or something like that. Is Kon-Tiki nominated for anything in the Oscars? We can start crossing our fingers for that.

[Tonichelle]

I finally got to see Lincoln!!! (I went last night for my bday)

Tommy Lee Jones should've won best supporting. I'd argue he was just as good - or better! than Day-Lewis.

[heyang]

I saw Silver Linings Playbook and enjoyed it. Ryan Bradley, Jennifer Lawrence and the entire cast performed really well. I don't know if it deserves to win any major awards, but it's definitely earned it's nominations.

[Olympia]

That's great to hear, Toni. I can't wait until I get to see it. I bet Tommy Lee Jones was splendid. There's such a real quality to him. What did you think of Sally Field? What did you think of Hal Holbrook, a longtime fave of mine?

[Tonichelle]

Sally's age shows I think a bit too much, but she was spot on as Mary Todd Lincoln. I wonder if they deleted some of her scenes, though... she has such a small part. Hal does well, but is another small part. Of all of the key players he wasn't really notable.

David Strathairn deserves more credit than he's getting, too. I like him as a supporting actor in everything I've seen, but he did well as Seward! Looks a lot like him too in the film. Considering he played the man that would eventually purchase Alaska for the USA, I really liked his portrayal.

[Olympia]

Sally's age shows I think a bit too much, but she was spot on as Mary Todd Lincoln. I wonder if they deleted some of her scenes, though... she has such a small part. Hal does well, but is another small part. Of all of the key players he wasn't really notable.

David Strathairn deserves more credit than he's getting, too. I like him as a supporting actor in everything I've seen, but he did well as Seward! Looks a lot like him too in the film. Considering he played the man that would eventually purchase Alaska for the USA, I really liked his portrayal.

I don't know how I managed to forget that Seward was in there! I bet you were tickled about that. There was a man with smarts and a view for the future. I like Strathairn as an actor, as well. He's never been the sort of guy you notice onscreen--he just melts into his role, and he's not one of those physically dominant types. Even his face is not particularly noticeable; somehow it's very compressed and inward. He really uses those characteristics to advantage. He was in a favorite obscure movie of mine, Sneakers. He held his own in a kicking cast, including Redford, Poitier, Mary McDonnell, Dan Aykroyd, and even River Phoenix. Strathairn can play good guys or bad guys and make you believe.

Silver Linings Playbook sounds splendid, though like As Good as It Gets, I doubt it's worth as much Oscar-wise as it's made out to be. I like that modest films such as this are made, about ordinary people trying to become a little more than they are, but I could never understand why both Jack Nicholson and Helen Hunt got Oscars for a film of that weight. As things line up, I can't imagine that Bradley Cooper will vault over both Hugh Jackman and Daniel Day-Lewis, unless the Academy voters suddenly decide with one voice to buy American.

I'm not so sure about the actress category, because at least two of the rest of the pack are odd birds this year: a five-year-old (now nine) and an elderly actress in a foreign-language film. I think Chastain has a good chance; interestingly, she and Lawrence are both big new talents, young but clearly gifted in several directions at once (Chastain is currently playing Broadway). Because Kathryn Bigelow was not nominated as Best Director, maybe people endorse her by voting for Chastain. But Lawrence could just as easily win, and she would deserve it for both past work and future promise. Already it's evident that her good work this year isn't just a fluke.

But these are things that can only be known the night of the awards. Remember the year that Lauren Bacall was a shoo-in as best actress? (Hint: she didn't win.)