The Lesser Known Murder Weapon in Clue |
|
Do any of you really give a shit about what the Golden Globes are supposed to signify? By the time that this column runs, the nominations for the Academy Awards (The Oscars) will have been released. Much speculation will have been had over whether or not the winners from the Golden Globes have influenced the subsequent nominations. Honestly, I wonder why anyone would put weight behind the institution that thought Pia Zadora was a great up and coming actress.
The Golden Globes are decided on by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA), an organization consisting of less than 100 critics, all part-time assholes who live in Hollywood and yet work for publications in other countries. It's a real head scratcher for me. Who are these people exactly? And even if we knew, would we really care?
Yet year after year you hear the wagons draw in together and the odd makers hunch over their score cards trying to figure out who is going to get nominated for what. It's really not the mental labyrinth that everyone keeps trying to make it out to be. Who's going to get nominated? The films that had the strongest push from their studios, that's who. The ones with the non-stop TV ads, complete with certification from famous movie reviewers telling you that you're stupid if you don't think a certain film is the end all and be all of the current year's existence.
What bothers me is that reviewers are supposed to make suggestions. Their word is supposed to be taken with the proverbial grain of salt. Hell, I review movies for this website myself, but I certainly hope that you're still going to be able to go into watching a movie with your brain still intact. Just because I say something's good doesn't mean that you're forced to agree with me (or any of the other reviewers who happen to be more famous than I 
"Next time I'm going to do a movie with more depth. Like THE HOLIDAY." |
|
currently am). Just because a movie is nominated or even wins an award shouldn't affect your ultimate opinion on how worthy it was.
I've always been a big Oscar fan. The only thing that I've ever done religiously has been to sit down and soak in the 4 + hour long show every year, kvetching with my mother over the dresses worn and the jewelry borrowed. I've delighted in watching Barbara Streisand deliver the news that Eminem had just won a statue for his song "Lose Yourself." I've even shed a tear when seeing certain worthy actors fumble for earnest words of thanks.
As the years have droned on, however, I've become bitter about the whole process. It's a phony one, this self-congratulatory bunch of hoopla. We give awards to these movies in hopes that they'll earn more money. And they do. People just haven't grasped the concept yet that just because everyone is standing in line for something doesn't mean that there's some grand prize at the end of the trail. We read New York Times' bestsellers even if they were pieces of fiction sold to us under the guise of being memoirs.
TITANIC is one of the most asinine wastes of money that has ever been confused for being award worthy. A movie where technical aspects were given accolades and overshadowed the fact that there was no depth to the film. It was a blockbuster which managed to trick people into thinking it was a work of art. Imagine if this had actually worked with PEARL HARBOR. People would be up in arms and the validity of the awards shows would still be in question. Instead we gave a bunch of little statues to a movie about losing a necklace on a big boat that sinks.
It's one thing if a movie is actually good, wins awards and then later becomes a blockbuster. Such is the case with the original ROCKY. A small film about a mediocre fighter who wants 
"Dyed brown hair. Check. Serious expression. Check. I'm Oscar bound, baby!" |
|
to be bigger than he'll possibly be able to pull off, the first in the subsequent franchise won Oscar gold and the hearts of the nation. It was a simple story honestly told that resonated with out nation of wanna-be winners.
The problem with giving out awards is the political implications that go along with them. Let's nominate a movie with homosexual characters to show that we're not heartless (even if the movie was boring as hell at its core) but everyone will know that they're not actually going to win anything. Let's do it just because it's controversial and we need a little drama to go with our drama.
Speaking of which, if the awards actually went to who they deserved to go to, there would be more comedies nominated. It's assumed that you can't be funny if you're a good actor. You also can't be good looking, as we've seen year after year go by with beautiful actresses only winning for roles that they "uglied up" for. So many stipulations, so little time.
You might be wondering if I put more stock in an awards show like the People's Choice Awards if I think that the other regulated shows are a bunch of crap. Do you KNOW what "the people" like to watch? Sure, I think that there's more depth to be found in Rachel McAdams, that still doesn't mean that I would have been happy to see her win anything for that horseshit vehicle THE NOTEBOOK. "The people" don't know shit. Hell, don't you know the Golden Globes and the Oscars count on that?
Am I going to watch the Oscars this year? Yeah. I'm going to fill out my scorecard and enter in all of the contests that go on in my community. I've been known to be right on the majority of the categories over the years. This year I'm in a pool to see who wins an iPod.
Still doesn't mean I like them. Unless of course, I win that iPod.
 email this column to a friend
|
| Neglected Foster Child of Hollywood |
Every other Wednesday
Not-so-gentle musings from the girl who is saving room in her uterus for Tarantino's spawn.
|
| AwesomeZara |
She's awesome, who would have guessed that?
|
| Contact |
If you have a comment, question, or suggestion, you can send a message to AwesomeZara by clicking here.
|
|
