Golden Afterthoughts

well, after being diminished to a paltry new conference last year, the golden globes returned last night in all their glory. the alcohol. the gowns. the cleavage!

yes...it appears jewel-colored gowns and cleavage are on the menu this awards season. (thank you, salma hayek!)

so, my lovelies, let's think back for a moment....

there was a time when the globes meant something. there was some stock in winning a globe. but lately, especially after the reports of scandal and "buying" statuettes, the globes seem watered down to a glamour, popularity contest much more than a ceremony to recognize a distinguished performances.

put simply: celebrity helps.

there are always exceptions.... especially in television work where HBO once again rules in most categories (and 30 rock, thankfully).

the extraordinary john adams took home acting prizes for paul giamatti, laura linney and tom wilkinson, as well as best mini-series/movie.

but let's be honest... what we really care about are movies here. so some preliminary thoughts on the globes that were:

i think "slumdog" winning the big prize can only help the film. i'm sure it will be a lock for pic and director nominations... but does this help it even more as it tries to break into the academy's need to give it's big prize to an american film?

yes, the academy has a long tradition of patriotism and it generally wants its big prize going to an american-made film. this often means more deserving pics are left to lesser categories (often best original screenplay).

but if the globes are good for anything... it's highlighting smaller, often foreign films and performances that may otherwise go unnoticed by the academy... and perhaps that exposure could ultimately help garner an individual or movie an oscar nod....

the biggest movement
i think kate winslet (the reader) has jumped over viola davis (doubt) and penelope cruz (vicky cristina barcelona) to be the best bet for supporting actress. she is long over due for some academy love and i think they'll be able to finally do it in a supporting category. plus - the buzz on her is exceptional. and if she is also ultimately nominated for revolutionary road in the best actress category, can they really let this woman go home empty-handed again? as a double nominee in the same year....? winslet will be the "losingnest" actress in academy history... and she's young, people.

endearment helps
now.... i haven't seen the film yet (because it hasn't been released here yet) and i'm sure he is very good in it... he's very possibly exceptional in it. but does the "story" of mickey rourke help him more than his performance in the wrestler? will the academy be caught up more in the comeback story than anything else...?

i think possibly. but i also don't think rourke's rambling, rather crass, acceptance speech did him any favors last night.

it never hurts to endear yourself to the academy. some think eddie murphy's globe speech cost him the oscar for dreamgirls. of course, i'm sure having norbert out the same year didn't help.

unlike rourke, sally hawkins of happy-go-lucky was so sweet and nervous and adorable up there...... i'm certain she'll at least garner a nomination for best actress. and that will make me happy.

senor spielbergo
i find steven spielberg films are often hit and miss... they always look great, but they're not always great. he is more consistent these days and his cecil b. demille award did not upset me last night... especially after a very generous, very enthralling acceptance speech.

if there is a lock
heath ledger appears to be on his way to winning the first posthumous oscar since peter finch in network. and this is well-deserved. his win last night was a moving moment with some very well-spoken words by christopher nolan.

the other categories
i see no real locks... but i do see some tight rices:

best actor: sean pennn (milk) vs. mickey rourke (the wrestler) with frank langella's nixon as the spoiler. does penn's recent win for mystic river hurt his chances? honestly... i think if anyone deserves two oscars, it's penn.

best actress: god, probably meryl streep vs. anyone. if winslet is nominated for revolutionary road, some things could change and open up supporting actress.

supporting actress: a three-way race between winslet, davis and cruz.

director: boy, wow.... ummm.... nolan (dark knight) vs. danny boyle (slumdog)?

picture: i almost think it's a race between dark knight and slumdog millionaire.

in conclusion
the globes are fun... they're loose and boozy... with great gowns and actors having fun. but what everyone really needs to look out for are the guild winners. screen actors, directors, writers and producers.

and i promise: i shall keep you posted on the developments.

until then.... happy movie-watching!

e.

p.s. i forgot the funnies!
ricky gervais was very funny last night.... he appeared onstage after winslet's first win for the reader. and he said something along the lines of, "see, kate. i told you to go holocaust. do a holocaust film and the awards come in." his follow-up line about the disappointing lack of gag reels on holocaust film DVDs did not go down as well.

nor did sacha baron cohen's line about the economy even hitting celebrities hard. "even madonna had to give up one of her personal assistants. and i know all of our hearts go out to guy ritchie." ouch.

oh....and a very awkward moment when seth rogen talked about how he wished he had been at the globes in the 80s because he wouldn't be just getting drunk with mickey rourke like tonight... but doing coke with him. very strange.

this after colin farrell admitted he was sniffling because he had a cold, "and not the other thing it would've been before."

lots of cocaine talk at the globes last night... weird. funny... but weird.