January 17, 2004

Nothing from nothing means nothing… and you gotta have something if you want to win Oscar…

The biggest surprise of this year's Golden Globes is that while they meant so little going in, they meant even less at the end. Oscar obsessives - one of which I have beenm although this season is making me slowly reconsider - will argue who won what and what it means ad nasueum. The truth is simpler. The three front runners each won three key awards. Picture, picture, director… actor, writer, actress.

Does it hurt Sideways a little to have its first significant awards event that it didn't sweep? Sure… maybe.

Did getting beat by Clint Eastwood for Best Director take the steam out of the "Scorsese must win" hum? Yeah.

Did the failure of Million Dollar Baby to win Best Drama slow the million dollar roll? Uh-huh.

But all things considered, the Globes couldn't have been less helpful in sorting out the Oscar race… not if they tried.

And as far as I'm concerned, that's just fine. In a perfect awards season, the function of the many small groups should be, in my opinion, as it is… an important definer of the field. What should not be the case - what the change of Oscar date has effectively fixed - is that 83 international writers of widely ranging prestige and position act as a primary for the vote of nearly 6000 Academy voters. One of the reasons why the Academy is unique is because the Academy is unique. No other group that offers across-the-industry awards has a voting base anywhere near that large. The Globes as a major influencer of the Oscar nominations or final outcome is an embarrassment, much the same as so many Americans believing that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for 9/11. Some ideas belong on the periphery.

As I have said a million times… as soon as you get into the mindset of trying to understand "them" when "them" is 6000 people, you are in trouble. One fool who likes to describe himself as "THE Oscar expert" hit 60% of his ten Globes guesses… and he just had to read 89 people there. In fact, one site's often quoted crew averaged a 56% percent success rate at guessing the 10 major movie categories, not even risking the other three movie categories.

My point is not just to mock the hubris of "expertise," but to offer honest perspective. We really can't know… even when we are covering a group that can fit in two buses. The best "guesser" in that group hit 70%. Not bad. But hardly a magic trick.

And as far as the Oscars go… nothing but Jamie Foxx for Best Actor for Jamie Foxx feels like a real lock.

A couple of other notes… Howard Shore has been disqualified for Oscar for The Aviator, so his Golden Globe will have to do.

The audience applauded wildly for Hotel Rwanda, but gave the film nothing. That same frustrating situation could occur on Oscar night, though I have to say, a Best Picture nod for Rwanda would be a HUGE win for MGM.

Michael Moore was kept from the Globes show by Dick Clark. And while I understand the sentiment behind Mr. Clark's power play, it is unacceptable and blame should be laid at the feet of the HFPA for allowing it.

And, by the way... Finding Neverland was not eligible for a WGA nod, so being overlooked is representitive of nothing.

Anyway… happy Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.

EME.

 

January 3, 2005 - Reflections On A New Year
December 31, 2004 - The Ten Best
December 30, 2004 - The Ten Worst
December 29, 2004 - Movies You Should Have Seen, But Didn't